piFTIiT 


I  ;iili 


11  lull 


IM'   ll.llNII     If 


'  il  ' 


Ii.'i!.!!||.I.h!. 


^ 

CL 

^ 

« 

^ 

«»i» 

^ 

1 

^■^ 

Ho 

Q. 

1 

^w 

M— 

*s> 

1^ 

o 

^ 

^ 

5 

^ 

05 

o 

C 

^» 

o 

bi) 

cs 

■»»* 

Eh 

<. 

^ 

t^ 

O 

3 

^ 

^ 

fe 

£ 

.^ 

<.» 

M 

(Tj 

'Ki 

^ 

Pi 

CO 

1- 

P^ 

2 

<t 

^ 

5 

% 

(U 
•♦-• 

c 

§ 

g 

V> 

CL 

Sin       1 

1 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/campbellismexposOOw 


CAMPBELLISM  EXPOSED, 


IN  AN  EXAMINATION 


LAUD'S  EEYIEW  OF  JETER. 


By  a.  p.  WILLIAMS, 

SALINE   CO.,    MO. 

SUBJECTS    DISCUSSED: 

1.  EXPERIirENTAL  RELIGION. 

2.  PRAYER  NOT  THE  DUTY  OF  THE  UNBAPTIZED. 

3.  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  IN  CONVERSION. 

4.  BAPTISII  IN  ORDER  TO  REMISSION  OF  SINS. 


INTEODUCTION  BY  J.  B.  JETEE, 
r.icnJioxD,  VA. 


NASHVILLE,   TENN.: 
SOUTHWESTERN   PUBLISHINO   HOUSE. 

NEW  YORK,— SHELDON  &  CO. 
I860. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1860,  by 

GEAVES,  MAKKS  &  CO., 

in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Middle  Dis- 
trict of  Tennessee. 


PART   1. 


INTRODUCTION. 


A  BRIEF  history  of  the  controversy  which  has  given  hirth 
to  the  present  volume,  seems  to  be  proper.  Campbellism,  in 
its  various  stages  of  development,  had  been  before  the  world 
for  a  period  of  more  than  thirty  years.  It  was  extremely 
difficult  to  decide  what  it  was.  All  Mr.  Campbell's  oppo- 
nents had  been  charged  with  misunderstanding  or  misrepre- 
senting his  views.  Several  "  ministers  and  members  of 
Baptist  Churches,"  being  deeply  impressed  with  the  import- 
ance of  "a  succinct  and  popular  treatise  upon  the  rise, 
progress,  character,  and  influence  of  the  sect  of  Christians 
called  Disciples  or  Campbellites,"  requested  the  writer  to 
prepare  it.  With  this  request  he  considered  it  his  duty  to 
comply.  Campbellism  Examined  was  written  with  the  hope 
that  it  would  tend  to  promote  harmony  between  the  Baptists 
and  the  Disciples  ;  or,  at  least,  to  make  more  obvious  and 
definite  the  points  in  controversy  between  them.  It  was  the 
design  of  the  author  to  present  a  clear  and  candid  statement 
of  Mr.  Camjjbell's  peculiar  theological  sentiments,  with  a 
brief  history  of  their  development  and  influence.  Of  the 
manner  in  which  he  executed  the  design,  the  volume  itself 
furnishes  the  best  information.  It  was  his  constant  aim  to 
avoid  all  offensive  personalities  and  opprobrious  epithets,  and 
to  treat  Mr.  C,  his  opinions  and  his  arguments,  with  all  due 
respect.  The  writer  did  not  hope  that  his  work  would  be 
pleasing  to  Mr.  C.  and  his  admirers.  The  attempt  to  expose, 
however  kindly  and  fairly,  the  errors,  inconsistencies,  contra- 
dictions and  sophistries  of  an  author,  who  had  acquired  a 
reputation  for  learning,  and  dialectic  skill,  and  who  had  so 
many  admirers  and  eulogists,  could  hardly  fail  to  create  some 

(v) 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

irritation;  and  the  degree  of  irritation  would,  of  ceurse,  be 
proportionate  to  the  success  of  the  attempt.  He  did  hope, 
however,  that  Mr.  C. ,  if  not  led  to  confess  his  errors — a  duty 
which  a  polemic  finds  it  hard  to  perform — Avould,  at  least,  be 
compelled  to  see,  and  gradually  to  abandon  them. 

So  soon  as  Campbellism  Examined  made  its  appearance,  all 
the  journals  in  the  interest  of  the  "current  reformation," 
commenced  a  furious  attack  on  it.  The  vials  of  their  wrath 
were  mercilessly  poured  on  the  head  of  the  devoted  author. 
In  this  onslaught  the  Millennial  Harbinger,  edited  by  Mr.  A. 
Campbell,  took  the  lead.  Everything  was  said  to  disparage 
the  book  and  its  author.  It  was  represented  as  being  false 
in  its  statements,  feeble  in  its  arguments,  mean  in  its  spirit, 
and,  on  the  whole,  unworthy  of  notice.  As  the  work,  how- 
ever, had  been  respectably  indorsed,  it  was  deemed  necessary 
to  review  it.  Mr.  Campbell  undertook  the  task  himself,  not 
thinking  it  wise  to  commit  it  to  feebler  or  less  practiced 
hands.  He  commenced  his  review  with  the  promise  of  the 
speedy  and  utter  refutation  of  the  volume,  and  even  thank- 
ful for  the  opportunity  of  exposing  its  errors.  There  was 
no  indication  of  the  lack  of  zeal,  or  of  time,  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  pledge.  Through  nine  tedious  numbers,  and  many 
other  extended  articles,  in  the  Harbinger,  did  he  labor  to 
discredit  the  statements,  refute  the  arguments,  and  disparage 
the  author  of  Campbellism  Examined.  Suddenly  new  light 
broke  upon  his  mind.  He  became  dissatisfied  with  his  re- 
view. He  was  writing  it  under  great  disadvantages.  The 
exigencies  of  the  case  demanded  that  he  should  prepare  a 
book.  That  he  had  failed  to  redeem  the  promise,  so  vaunt- 
ingly  made,  his  most  partial  friends  could  not  but  perceive. 
They  were  all  satisfied,  however,  that  what  was  not  done  in 
the  prolix  review  in  the  Harbinger,  would  be  thoroughly 
done  in  the  forthcoming  book. 

One  long  accustomed  to  notice  the  tactics  of  Mr.  Campbell, 
should  surely  not  be  judged  uncharitably  for  suspecting  that 
the  promise  of  a  book  was  a  mere  ruse  to  cover  a  retreat 
from  the  contest.  The  writer  had  no  expectation  that  he 
would  publish  a  book  in  reply  to  Campbellism  Examined. 
The  Iniroduciion  to  the  proposed  volume,  appearing  at  full 


INTRODUCTION.  VII 

len,u;th  in  the  pages  of  the  Harbinger,  did  not  satisfy  the  in- 
credulous that  it  Avonld  ever  see  the  light.  So  well  convinced 
was  the  author  of  Campbellisni  Examined,  that  the  promise 
would  not  be  fulfilled,  that  he  proceeded  at  once  to  reply  to 
the  review  published  in  the  Harbinger,  in  a  pamphlet  entitled 
Campbellisni  Ke-examined. 

This  pamphlet  was  received  by  Mr.  Campbell  and  his 
friends  with  the  silence  of  contempt.  So  it  is  inferred  from 
the  language  of  Mr.  Moses  B.  Lard.  "The  reader,"  he  says, 
"  will  doubtless  feel  curious  to  know  why  it  is  that  Mr. 
Jeters's  second  book — 'Campbellism  Re-examined' — has  been 
treated  so  cavalierly.  The  writer's  reply  is  simply  that  he 
has  seen  and  read  the  little  swaggering  thing :  should  a  more 
elaborate  reason  be  demanded,  that  reason  must  be  sought 
in  the  character  of  the  silence  with  which  the  work  is  passed." 
One  must  be  endowed  with  supernatural  power  so  to  discuss 
"  the  character  of  the  silence."  Mr.  L.  would  have  us  think 
that  it  was  the  silence  of  contempt.  Perhaps  it  was.  But  we 
are  still  left  to  conjecture  whether  the  contempt  was  real  or 
feigned.  Perhaps  it  was  the  silence  of  discretion.  There  are 
certainly  some  things  in  the  pamphlet  which  Mr.  Campbell 
ought  to  answer;  but  it  is  presumed  that  he  never  will. 
Whatever  other  characters  his  silence  may  have,  it  will  pretty 
certainly  be  profound  and  perpetual. 

As  was  expected,  Mr.  Campbell's  promise  to  publish  a  book 
was  not  fulfilled.  The  portico  was  erected,  but  the  temple 
was  a  failure.  The  man  began  to  build  a  house,  but  was 
not  able  to  finish  it.  The  Introduction  appeared,  inspiring  in 
many  minds  the  delusive  hope  that  the  book  would  soon  fol- 
low. Well,  what  is  the  excuse  for  the  failure  to  publish  the 
book?  Mr.  C.  informs  us  in  his  Introduction  to  Mr.  Lard's 
work — "  Not  being  an  impartial  judge  in  my  own  case,  and 
being  absorbed  in  matters  of  transcendent  moment,  we  found 
a  brother,  comparatively  young,"  etc.  Mr.  C.  furnishes  two 
reasons  for  the  failure.  First,  "Not  being,"  he  says,  "an 
impartial  judge  in  my  own  case."  What  does  this  mean? 
Does  his  partiality — his  want  of  candor — unfit  him  for  de- 
fending his  cherished  Reformation  ?  This  seems  to  be  the 
meaning  of  the  lauguago.     Or  does  it  contain  an  intimation 


Vlll  INTRODUCTION. 

that  the  brothcriiood  deemed  it  important  that  the  defense 
of  his  principles  should  be  intrusted  to  an  "impartial  judge;" 
that  is,  to  one  more  discriminating,  more  vigorous  in  debate, 
and,  especially,  less  embarrassed  by  his  antecedents  than  Mr. 
Campbell?  Is  the  scepter  passing  from  his  hands ?  Secondly, 
"Being  absorbed,'  he  continues,  "in  matters  of  transcendent 
moment'' — And  were  not  all  these  matters  fully  known  to  him 
before  he  promised  to  write  the  book  ?  Ilis  duties  as  pres- 
ident of  Bethany  College,  as  editor  of  the  Harbinger,  and 
as  a  sub-reviser  of  the  Bible  Union,  were  all,  it  is  presumed, 
as  well  understood  when  he  was  writing  the  Introduction, 
as  they  were  subsequently. 

In  due  time  a  volume,  entitled,  RevieAV  of  Campbellism  Ex- 
amined, written  by  Mr.  Campbell's  substitute,  Mr.  Moses  E. 
Lard,  of  Missouri,  was  issued  from  the  press.  Mr.  Lard  is  a' 
more  discriminating,  more  methodical,  and  more  vigorous,  but 
less  adroit  writer  than  Mr.  Campbell;  and  he  is,  beyond  all 
comparison,  more  straightforward,  clear,  and  undisguised  in 
the  statement  of  his  opinions.  It  has  been  impossible  to  under- 
stand Mr.  Campbell's  views.  His  language  is  con  trad  ictoryj 
All  opinions,  orthodox  and  heterodox — from  high  Calvinism 
down  to  heartless  rationalism — may  be  easily  culled  from 
his  ponderous  volumes.  The  inability  to  interpret  his  words 
might  be  ascribed  to  inattention  or  prejudice,  were  it  not 
that  his  opponents,  almost  without  exception,  have  fallen 
under  the  same  condemnation.  Not  long  since,  in  an  article 
in  the  Harbinger,  he  stated,  in  substance,  that  Robert  Owen, 
the  infidel,  was  the  only  man  among  his  opponents  to  whom 
he  could  award  the  praise  of  fairness  and  candor.  Where 
there  are  so  many  illusions  there  must  be  mist.  So  many 
ghosts  surely  could  not  be  conjured  up  in  daylight.  It  is 
almost  impossible  to  misunderstand  the  views  of  Mr.  Lard. 
He  embraces  the  most  objectionable  sentiments  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, states  them  clearly,  defends  them  earnestly,  and  follows 
them  boldly  to  their  legitimate  consequences.  Mr.  Lard's 
book  is  a  full  development  of  the  Reformation  as  it  was  un- 
derstood in  the  daj's  of  what  ]\Ir.  Campbell  styled  the  "  Do- 
ver Decree."  The  review  is  indorsed,  in  all  it*  principles 
and  expositions,  by  the  leader  of  the  reformation.      Hence- 


INTRODUCTION.  IX 

forth,  there  need  be  no  doubt  as  to  its  principles  and 
practices.  We  have  a  clear,  stereotyped  and  authentic  state- 
ment of  them.  One  effect  anticipated  from  the  publication 
of  Campbellism  Examined,  has  been  fully  realized.  The 
points  of  difference  between  the  Baptists  and  the  Disciples 
have  been  clearly  defined.  The  line  of  demarcation  between 
the  parties  has  been  unmistakably  drawn.  Whether  the  Dis- 
ciples in  their  future  discussions  will  firmly  abide  by  the 
landmarks  which  Mr,  Lard,  with  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, has  set  for  them,  remains  to  be  seen.  While  we  deplore 
the  prevalence  of  these  sentiments,  we  can  not  but  rejoice 
that  they  are  brought  out  into  daylight,  so  that  they  may  be 
understood,  guarded  against,  and  refuted. 

There  were  two  reasons  against  our  replying  to  Mr.  Lard's 
book,  either  of  which  would  have  governed  us.  First,  We 
had  discussed  the  questions  at  issue  with  Mr.  Campbell  him- 
self, the  acknowledged  head  of  the  reformation,  the  chief 
patron  of  the  "Ancient  (Bethany)  Gospel."  We  had  pub- 
lished our  views  of  the  principles  of  the  reformation  in 
Campbellism  Examined.  Mr.  Campbell  has  made  a  long-con- 
tinued and  laborious  effort  to  defend  these  principles,  through 
the  pages  of  his  widely  circulated  Magazine.  We  had  re- 
joined. Mr.  Campbell  had  enjoyed  ample  time  and  oppor- 
tunity for  the  vindication  of  his  sentiments.  There  was  no 
reason  that  we  should  turn  aside  to  contend  with  one  of  his 
subalterns,  who  was  vauntingly  brought  forward  as  "a  brother 
comparatively  young — one  of  the  graduates  of  Bethany  Col- 
lege," to  do  what  Mr.  C.  had  failed  to  do.  We  had  no  wish 
to  be  engaged  in  a  perpetual  discussion.  Our  views  of  Camp- 
bellism were  before  the  public ;  and  we  were  willing  to  abide 
the  decision  of  that  tribunal.  Secondly,  The  bitter  person- 
alities, and  grossly  offensive  epithets,  that  darken  almost  every 
page  of  Mr.  Lard's  Review,  forbade  a  reply  from  us.  We 
felt,  and  were  ready  to  acknowledge,  that  we  were  no  match 
for  him  in  the  use  of  such  weapons.  He  had  reached  a  pre- 
eminence in  the  arts  of  abuse,  to  which  we  did  not  aspire. 
Meanwhile,  it  was  obvious,  within  the  range  of  our  observa- 
tion, that  the  virulent  spirit  of  the  work  had  neutralized  its 
influence.  Even  his  warm  admirers,  who  extolled  the  book 
1* 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

for  its  logical  acumen  and  force  of  diction,  were  compelled 
to  enter  a  caveat  against  its  spirit;  and  impartial  men  were 
ready  to  exclaim,  in  the  language  of  James,  "Doth  a  foun- 
tain send  forth  at  the  same  place  sweet  water  and  bitter?" 

Without  any  suggestion  fi'om  us,  directly  or  indirectly, 
Elder  A.  P.  Williams,  of  Missouri,  undertook  to  reply  to  Mr. 
Lard's  book.  He  resides  in  the  vicinity  of  Mr.  Lard,  and 
has  taken  the  full  measure  of  his  abilities.  A  part  of  Mr. 
Williams's  reply  has  been  published  in  weekly  numbers  in 
the  Western  Watchman.  The  object  of  the  writer  has  been, 
not  so  much  to  repel  in  detail  the  attacks  made  on  Camp- 
bellism  Examined,  as  to  discuss  the  important  princii^les  set 
forth  by  Mr.  Lard.  The  part  of  the  reply  which  has  fallen 
under  our  notice  is  admirable.  Mr.  W.  marches  straight 
forward  to  his  object.  His  reasoning  is  clear,  strong,  and 
resistless.  It  is  amusing  to  see  with  what  ease  he  lifts  the 
vail  from  the  sophistries  of  Mr.  Lard.  He  takes  a  compre- 
hensive grasp  of  his  subject,  dissects  it  with  a  masterly  hand, 
and  causes  the  light  of  truth  to  shine  through  every  part  of  it. 
He  is  at  home  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  has  evidently  drawn 
his  theological  views  from  a  careful,  independent  study  of 
them.  He  may  have  occasionally  misconceived  the  meaning 
of  a  proof-text;  but  this  defect  is  abundantly  compensated 
by  the  variety,  force,  and  originality  of  the  arguments  with 
which  he  fortifies  his  positions.  The  style  of  the  work  is 
concise,  clear,  and  nervous.  Its  spirit  is  excellent,  and  con- 
trasts most  favorably  with  the  virulent  example  of  his  oppo- 
nent. It  is  calm,  firm,  kind,  forbearing.  If  the  latter  part 
of  the  work  is  executed  in  a  style  corresponding  with  the 
first  part — of  which  we  have  no  doubt — it  will  leave  nothing 
te  be  desired  in  the  discussion  of  Campbellism.  The  system 
will  be  laid  bare,  and  its  errors  and  evil  tendencies  fully  ex- 
posed. All  who  wish  to  view  the  system  in  its  last  and 
worst  phases,  should  read  Mr.  Lard's  Review  and  Mr.  Wil- 
liams's reply. 

We  can  not  close  this  Introduction  without  referring  briefly 
to  the  present  aspects  of  the  Bethany  reformation.  There 
are  two  obvious  tendencies  in  it — one  is  to  evangelicalism, 
and  the   other  to   rationalism.     The   tendency   to   evangelic 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

truth  is  seen  in  numerous  articles  published  in  the  journals 
devoted  to  the  "  Current  Keformation,"  in  the  discussions  on 
spiritual  influence,  and  in  several  local  divisions  which 
have  recently  occurred  among  the  Disciples,  that  have  been 
caused,  in  part,  at  least,  by  conflicting  views  of  the  Spirit's 
influence.  We  have  seen,  within  the  last  few  years,  several 
statements  of  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  influence,  from  the 
pens  of  reformers,  that  would  be  readily  indorsed  by  the 
Baptist  denomination ;  and  their  views  were  placed  in  direct 
antagonism  to  the  rationalistic  views  advocated  by  one  party 
among  them.  In  short,  they  are  beginning  among  themselves 
the  very  battle  which  nearly  thirty  years  ago  was  fought  be- 
tween them  and  the  Baptists.  The  tendency  to  rationalism 
is  clearly  and  sadly  manifested  in  Mr.  Lard's  book,  and,  it 
is  to  be  feared,  in  a  majority  of  the  reformation  journals. 
The  inherent  depravity  of  man  is  not  denied ;  but  it  is  ex- 
plained as  mere  peccability — a  liability  to  sin — an  infirmity 
to  which  Adam  was  as  much  subject  as  his  posterity.  The 
agency  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion  is  not  formally  rejected; 
but  by  this  is  meant  that  "the  Spirit  spends  on  the  mind 
of  the  sinner  in  conversion  no  infiiience  except  such  as  resides 
in  the  truth,  as  divine,  as  of  the  Spirit."  Not  only  is  the 
phrase,  "Christian  experience,"  repudiated,  but  the  thing 
which  it  is  employed  among  evangelical  Christians  to  signify 
is  ridiculed.  A  man,  according  to  the  system,  becomes  a 
Christian,  by  his  own  unaided  powers,  without  prayer,  pre- 
cisely as  he  would  become  an  Odd  Fellow  or  a  Son  of  Tem- 
perance, except  that  in  the  latter  case  he  would  be  moved 
by  uninspired  and  the  former  by  inspired  arguments.  Con- 
version, instead  of  being  a  Divine  change,  comprehending  a 
new  heart — a  new  life — a  partaking  of  the  Divine  natui-e — 
is  a  reformation  originating  simply  in  the  force  of  truth  and 
ending  in  immersion.  The  inevitable  result  of  these  opinions, 
if  Divine  grace  does  not  counteract  their  tendency,  must 
be  the  abandonment  of  all  spiritual  religion,  and  the  adoption 
of  a  rationalism  as  heartless  and  barren  as  that  of  the  Ger- 
man Neologists. 

The  reader  will  be  curious  to  know  what  ground  Mr.  Camp- 
bell occupies  in  regard  to  these  diverging  tendencies  of  his 


XU  INTRODUCTION. 

"Ancient  Gospel."  Who  can  tell?  Both  parties  appeal  with 
confidence  to  the  writings  of  their  brother  Campbell  in  sup- 
port of  their  peculiar  phases  of  the  Bethany  system;  and 
both  parties  are  right.  Page  after  page  may  be  quoted  from 
his  writings  on  either  side.  He  is  clearly  a  two-sided  theo- 
logian— having  an  orthodox  and  a  heterodox,  a  spiritual  and 
a  rationalistic  side.  We  have  looked  over  the  pages  of  the 
Harbinger  to  see  if  he  will  define  his  position ;  but  we  have 
looked  in  vain.  It  is  now  settled  that  he  will  never  attempt 
to  reconcile  the  conflicting  statements  of  his  theology.  We 
admire  his  prudence.  No  human  ingenuity  can  either  recon- 
cile or  conceal  the  contradictions  of  his  system ;  or  rather  of 
his  unsystematic  speculations.  But  we  by  no  means  envy 
his  position.  Standing  with  one  foot  on  each  side  of  the  line, 
his  situation  must  be  embarrassing  and  painful;  but  there  he 
is  doomed  to  stand  till  he  falls.  He  may,  as  unfortunately 
he  is  accustomed  to  do,  continue  to  denounce  as  traducers 
those  who  expose  his  inconsistencies ;  but  he  does  not,  will 
not,  can  not  define  his  position,  without  involving  himself  in 
fresh  complications. 

Our  hope  of  the  reformation  is  less  sanguine  than  it  was 
when  we  wrote  Campbellism  Examined;  but  still  we  have 
hope.  The  Disciples  hold  some  redeeming  sentiments.  As 
already  stated,  there  are  some  hopeful  tendencies  and  indica- 
tions among  them.  They  are  held  together  by  the  magic  of 
a  name,  and  by  a  leader  whose  authority  they  have  indig- 
nantly denied,  and  implicitly  followed.  It  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  when  Mr.  C.  shall  have  been  removed  from  his 
leadership,  by  the  infirmities  of  age,  or  the  hand  of  death, 
that  the  diverse  tendencies  of  the  sect  will  be  more  strongly 
developed,  and  disintegration  Avill  probably  follow.  Mean- 
time the  course  which  the  Baptists  should  pursue  toward  the 
Disciples  is  plain.  It  is  utterly  impossible  that  they  should, 
without  an  abandonment  of  their  principles,  and  a  forgetful- 
ness  of  their  histoi'y,  look  on  the  sentiments  put  forth  in  Mr. 
Lard's  book,  except  with  disapprobation  and  grief.  They 
must  oppose  them,  firmly,  earnestly,  constantly,  but  still 
kindly,  as  they  reverence  the  Scriptures,  and  desire  the  salva- 
tion of  men.     They  should,  however,  approve  and  commend 


INTRODUCTIOX.  XUl 

what  is  good,  and  cheei'fully  give  Avhat  encouragement  they 
can  to  every  right  tendency  among  the  Disciples.  Most  sin- 
cerely should  we  sympathize  with  those  who  are  contending  for 
the  real,  personal,  efficient  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without 
which  there  is  neither  repentance,  nor  faith,  nor  piety,  nor 
a  well-founded  hope  of  everlasting  life. 

J.  B.  Jetek. 

EiCHMOXD,  April,  ISGO. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION.— By  Jetee. 

PAGB 

1.  History  of  controversy  giving  birth  to  this  volume v 

2.  Estimate  of  jMr.  Lard viii 

3.  Eeasons  for  not  replying  to  Mr.  Lard ix 

4.  Eeasons  which  induced  Elder  "Williams  to  reply x 

5.  The  two  obvious  tendencies  of  the  Bethany  Eeformation..  x 

6.  Hopes  of  Eeformation  less  sanguine , xii 


PAKT    I. 


CHAPTEE  I. 

CHRISTIAN     EXPEEIENCE. 

§    1.  Statement  of  Mr.  Lard's  position 21 

g    2.  Christian  Experience  defined 23 

§    3.  Is  it  right  to  give  a  relation  of  it  before  the  Church?..  29 

(i.)     The  Bible  sanctions  it  elsewhere 30 

(II.)    It  furnishes  one  example 31 

(hi.)  Constructively,  it  requires  it 32 

(iv.)  It  invests  the  Church  with  the  right  to  require 

it — Makes  it  necessary  for  it  to  do  so 33 

(v.)    Grounds  of  opposition  taken  by  Mr.  Lard 35 

I    4.  Mr.  Lard's  second  reason 37 

Author's  first  argument  in  replj' 39 

Second  argument 41 

Third  argument 42 

g    5.  Mr.  Lard's  third  reason 47 

(XV) 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   IT. 

THE  DTTTY   OF   THE   TJNBAPTIZED  TO   PRAY. 

PAGE 

?    1.  Mr.  Lard's  position — It  is  not — Reasons 51 

Issue  formed — First  argument 54 

Second  argvm^ent 57 

Third            "         59 

Fourth          "         64 

Fifth            "         74 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF   THE  HOLY   SPIRIT   IN  CONVERSION. 

?    1.  (i.)  Mr.  Lard's  position  stated — First  argument 77 

(ii.)  Mr.  Lard's  first  argument  stated  and  answered 84 

§    2.  Mr.  Lard's  second  argument  reviewed 86 

g    3.  Mr.  Lard's  third  argument  stated  and  reviewed 9.6 

g    4.  Mr.  Lard's  fourth  argument  stated  and  reviewed 104 

g    5.  Mr.  Lard's  fifth  argument  stated  and  noticed 114 

§    6.  Mr.  Lard's  sixth  argument  stated  and  reviewed 115 

§     7.  Mr.  Lard's  seventh  argument  stated  and  reviewed 121 

§     8.  Mr.  Lard's  eighth  argument  stated  and  reviewed 125 

§    9.  Mr.  Lard's  ninth  argument  stated  and  reviewed 130 

§  10.  Mr.  Lard's  tenth  argument  stated  and  reviewed 134 

g  11.  Mr.  Lard's  eleventh  argument  noticed 143 

g  12.  Mr.  Lard's  twelfth  argument  stated  and  reviewed 145 

g  13.  Mr.  Lard's  thirteenth  argument  stated  and  reviewed...  147 

g  14.  Mr.  Lard's  fourteenth  and  last  argument  considered...  150 

CHAPTER   IV. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  IN  CONVERSION — Continued. 

g    1.  Review  of  Mr.  Lard's  notice  of  Jeter's  objections 154 

g    2.  Review  of  Mr.  Lard's  objections  to  Mr.  Jeter's  views 

of  human  depravity 161 

§    3.  Power  to  sin  reviewed,  etc 169 

§    4.  Mr.  Lard  reviews  Mr.  Jeter's  second  objection  with 

Mr.  Campbell's  theory  reviewed 17Sr 


CONTENTS.  Xvii 

PAGE 

§    5.  Mr.  Lard's  review  of  Mr.  Jeter's  third  objection  to 

Campbellism  reviewed 183 

g    6.  Mr.  Lard's  review  of  Mr.  Jeter's  fourtli  objection  con- 
sidered   194 

Mr.  Lard's  review  of  Mr.  Jeter's  fiftli  objection  consid- 
ered    199 

§    7.  Mr.  Lard's  review  of  Mr.  Jeter's  sixtli  objection  con- 
sidered    205 

§    8.  Mr.  Lard's  review  of  Mr.  Jeter's  seventh  objection  ex- 
amined    213 

CHAPTER   V. 

THE    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT     IN    CONVERSION Continued. 

§     1.  Argument  in  favor  based  on  Gen.  vi :  5 ;   viii  :  21  ; 

Psalm  xiv:   2,3 223 

§    2.  Argument  based  on  Matt,  xxviii  :  19,  20 230 

§    3.  Argument  based  on  Acts  xviii :  9,  10 234 

§    4.  Argument  based  on  Acts  xi:  20,  21 235 

§     5.  Argument  based  on  Acts  xiv :  27 238 

Conclusion  of  First  Part 242 


PART    II. 


CHAPTEPv   VL 

BAPTISM   FOR   REMISSION   OF   SINS. 

Lard's  Review  of  Jeter's   Views  Examined. 

?    1.  Baptism  identical  with  Eegeneration  considered 247 

§    2.  Baptism  a  part  of  Conversion  considered 250 

§    3.  Mr.  Lard's  views  of  remission  of  sins  examined 254 

g  4.  Sins  remitted   in  connection  witli  faith — Argument 

first 256 

§    5.  Argument  second 268 

§    6.  Argument  third 272 

?    7.  Argument  fourth 276 


XVin  CONTENTS. 

PAGR 

§    8.  Argument  fifth 278 

§    9,  Argument  sixth 280 

§  10.  Mr.  Lard's  first  argument  examined 290 

§  11.  Mr.  Lard's  second  argument  examined 295 

§  12.  Mr.  Lard's  third  argument  examined 310 

§  13.  Mr,  Lard's  fourth  argument  examined 316 

§  14.  Mr.  Lard's  fifth  argument  examined 319 

§  15.  Mr.  Lard's  sixth  argument  examined 328 

g  16.  Mr.  Lard's  seventh  argument  examined 336 

g  17.  Mr.  Lard's  eighth  argument  examined 342 

§  18.  Mr.  Lard's  ninth  argument  examined 344 


APPENDIX. 

THE   DESIGN    OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Commemoration  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 347 


Air  EXAMINATION 


LARD'S  REVIEW  OF  JETER. 


WE  have  reached  a  period,  in  my  estimation,  very 
propitious.  The  publication  of  Dr.  Jeter's  "Camp- 
bellism  Examined"  has  called  into  being  a  Review,  by 
Elder  M.  E.  Lard,  of  Liberty,  Mo.,  "a  graduate  of  Beth- 
any College,"  in  which  the  doctrines  of  Mr.  Campbell  and 
his  adherents  are  set  forth  without  mitigation  or  disguise. 
The  issues  between  them  and  the  Baptists — and,  I  may 
add,  all  orthodox  Christians — are  clearly  made  out.  We 
know  now  precisely  what  we  have  to  meet.  And  the 
world  know  what  they  are  pledged  to  maintain  and  de- 
fend. 

In  taking  up  my  pen,  I  deem  it  necessary  to  state 
that  it  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  notice  Mr.  Lard's  work 
as  a  Review  of  Campbellism  Examined,  or  of  vindi- 
cating the  author  of  the  latter  work.  Mr.  Jeter  needs 
not  my  vindication.  He  is  fully  competent  to  take  care 
of  himself.  His  work,  in  my  humble  judgment,  will 
not  suffer  from  this  Review.  It  will  be  made  the  more 
useful,  because  it  will  be  more  generally  and  carefully 
read.  And  all  it  needs  to  help  it  survive  the  attacks  of 
the  Review  is  a  careful  and  candid  reading.     As  to  Mr. 

(19) 


20  AN   EXAMINATION    OV    LARd's  REVIEW   OF 

Lard's  personal  attacks  on  Dr.  Jeter,  they  are  like  arrows 
shot  against  a  cliff:  they  will  either  fall  to  the  ground 
with  their  points  broken,  or  rebound  upon  him  who 
holds  the  bow. 

My  object  in  writing  is  simply  to  notice  four  points 
discussed  in  Mr.  Lard's  book,  namely,  "  Christian  Ex- 
perience," "The  Duty  of  Unbaptized  Persons  to  Pray," 
"The  Agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Conversion,"  and 
"  Baptism  in  Order  to  remission  of  Sins." 

I  must  further  be  allowed  to  say,  that  the  love  of 
controversy  has  had  nothing  to  do  in  prompting  me  to 
write.  The  expressed  wish  of  brethren,  whose  judgment 
I  respect,  and  the  hope  of  doing  good,  have  made  up  the 
prompting  motive.  The  latter  consideration  particularly 
has  weighed  with  me.  I  think  Mr.  Lard  can  be  met  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  do  good,  because  he  has  opened 
the  way  for  a  successful  reply,  and  because  he  has  left 
no  room  for  dodging.  His  denomination  must  stand  by 
his  book,  or  come  over  to  our  side  of  the  issues  he  has 
made.  To  one  of  these  alternatives  they  can  be  driven. 
If  they  stand  by  the  book  it  will  soon  crush  them  by 
the  weight  of  its  errors.  If  they  repudiate  it,  we  may 
yet  have  the  privilege  of  congratulating  them  as  having 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

As  Mr.  Lard's  book  comes  out  with  the  indorsement 
of  Mr.  Campbell,  we  may  justly  conclude  that  it  is 
regarded  by  him  as  a  clear  and  successful  exposition 
of  his  teachings.  And  as  Mr.  Campbell  so  regards  it, 
of  course  all  his  followers  so  regard  it.  Then,  in  meet- 
ing the  issues  as  made  by  him,  we  meet  the  whole 
phalanx.     If  we  slay  this  Goliah,  the  victory  is  ours. 

Having  premised  this  much,  I  proceed  to  my  work. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  21 


CHAPTEE  I. 

CHRISTIAN     EXPERIENC-E. 

WHAT  Mr.  Lard  says  on  tbis  subject,  occupies  the 
33d,  34th,  35th,  36th,  and  37th  pages  of  his  book. 
I  can  not  transcribe  the  whole,  yet  I  will  quote  so  much 
as  is  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  his  view 
of  the  subject. 

Mr.  Lard,  referring  to  what  Mr.  Jeter  has  said  on 
this  subject,  says : 

"  If  we  are  to  believe  the  subject  to  be  part  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  accept  his  (Jeter's)  picture  of  it  as  true, 
to  deem  him  its  friend,  and  Mr.  Campbell  its  enemy, 
then,  truly,  may  it  be  said  that  it  is  not  from  its  ene- 
mies, but  from  its  friends,  that  Christianity  suffers  its 
chief  disgrace." 

Here,  reader,  let  me  give  you  Mr.  Jeter's  "  picture  " 
of  Christian  experience.     He  says  : 

"  It  denotes  that  series  of  conflicts,  exercises,  and 
emotions,  springing  from  a  gradual  knowledge  of  divine 
truth,  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
results  in  the  conversion  of  the  soul  to  Christ,  and 
accompanies  this  event." 

He  adds  in  another  place  : 

"I  have  been  in  the  Christian  ministry  more  than 
thirty  years,  and  I  have  no  recollection  of  having  read 
in  a  book,  or  heard  from  the  lips  of  any  teacher,  ap- 
proved   by   any   orthodox   Christian   denomination,  the 


22  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

description  of  saving  experience,  whicli  did  not  include 
godly  sorrow,  the  renunciation  of  sins,  and  trust  in 
Christ  for  salvation.  To  represent  an  experience,  hav- 
ing no  allusion  to  conviction  of  sin,  sorrow  for  it,  hatred 
of  it,  the  abandonment  of  it,  faith  in  Christ,  love  to 
him,  and  an  obedient  disposition — in  short,  a  change  of 
heart — is  to  onisrepresenty 

Reader,  here  is  Mr.  Jeter's  '^picture."  Do  you  think 
that  from  this  Christianity  will  suffer  its  "  chief  dis- 
grace? " 

Mr.  Lard  says  : 

"■  Mr.  Campbell  attacked  the  practice  in  question  [the 
relation  of  an  experience  before  the  Church]  for  the 
following  reasons : 

"1.  It  is  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible. 

"2.  The  main  point  in  the  experience  is  a  fiction. 

"3.  The  practice  fosters  superstition." 

Mr.  Lard  "  dwells  for  a  moment "  upon  each  of  these 
reasons.  He  does  not,  however,  attempt  to  sustain 
them  by  an  appeal  to  the  word  of  God.  All  he  gives 
is  unsupported  assertion.  I  will  notice  these  reasons 
presently.  I  wish  first  to  give  the  reader  the  full  benefit 
of  all  he  says  in  support  of  his  second  reason. 

"2,  The  main  point  in  the  experience  is  a  fiction. 
This  point  is  the  sense  of  forgiveness  alleged  to  be  felt 
by  the  party  at  the  moment  when  his  sins  are  supposed 
to  be  remitted.  In  his  account  of  the  '  elements  of  a 
Christian  experience,'  Mr.  Jeter  thought  it  wise  to  sup- 
press this.  The  meaning  of  the  expression  '  sense  of 
forgiveness,'  is  concisely  this :  That  at  the  instant  of 
regeneration,  the  sinner  is  sensibly  assured  that  his  sins 
are  remitted.  But  this  is  something  which  the  Bible 
does  not  affirm.  Feelings  may  exist,  but  they  prove 
not  remission  ;  impressions  may  be  made,  but  they  teach 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  23 

not  forgiveness.  In  most  cases  we  may  hope  the  un- 
lortunate  victim  of  this  delusion  may  be  sincere.  But 
this  alters  not  the  nature  of  the  case.  Whether  he 
feigns  the  existence  of  feelings  that  have  no  existence, 
(which  we  fear  is  not  seldom  the  case,)  or  adopts  the 
fictitious  construction  of  others,  of  feelings  which  do 
exist,  (which  is  perhaps  more  frequently  the  case,)  the 
result  is  the  same ;  the  point  assumed  to  be  the  evidence 
of  remission,  is  a  fiction.  No  good  man  of  strong  mind, 
and  unwilling  to  be  deceived,  ever  yet  heard  related 
what  is  popularly  called  a  'Christian  experience,'  with- 
out feeling  himself  deeply  moved  when  that  part  of  the 
farce  was  approached  which  was  to  elicit  a  declaration 
of  the  sense  of  forgiveness.  It  is  difficult  to  say  which 
is  the  greater — the  pity  of  such  a  man  for  the  deluded 
ci'eature  who  sits  before  him  on  the  inquisitorial  bench, 
to  be  plied  with  every  silly  question  which  ignorance  or 
impudence  can  put,  or  his  disgust  for  the  blind  guide  who 
conducts  the  process  of  torturing  the  feelings  of  a  sub- 
dued and  weeping  sinner  into  every  imaginable  form 
that  is  false." 

Reader,  pause  here  and  take  your  breath,  and  then 
we  will  proceed  to  discuss  what  a  Christian  experience 
really  is,  and  Mr.  Lard's  three  reasons  for  opposing  its 
relation  before  the  Church. 

§2. 

Reader,  let  us  noio  inquire  lohat  is  a  Christian  experience  ? 
I  should  define  it  as  being  expressive  of  those  views  of  him- 
self, of  sin,  of  God,  and  of  Christ,  to  tohich  the  sinner 
feels  himself  conducted  in  his  passage  from  death  unto 
life,  and  those  new  affections  implanted  in  his  sotd  at 
conversion. 

Let  us  bring  this  definition  to  the  test  of  Scripture : 


24  AN   EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

1.  The  first  thing  experienced  in  conversion  is  a 
change  in  one's  views  of  himself  and  of  sin.  This  is 
taught  us  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal,  (Luke  xv  :  17.) 
He  first  "  came  to  himself,"  that  is,  he  was  brought  to 
place  a  just  estimate  upon  his  true  character,  and  to  feel 
his  destitution  and  guilt.  It  is  taught  us  in  the  con- 
version of  Paul.  Before  apprehended  on  his  way  to 
Damascus,  he  had  a  very  high  notion  of  his  own  good- 
ness. He  was,  as  touching  the  law,  a  Pharisee,  and  as 
touching  the  righteousness  which  was  in  the  law,  blame- 
less.— Phil,  iii :  5,  6.  But  afterward  he  viewed  himself 
as  the  chief  of  sinners.  He  tells  Timothy  he  had  been 
before  a  persecutor,  a  blasphemer,  and  an  injurious  per- 
son.— 1  Tim.  i :  13,  15.  Before,  he  was  "  alive  without 
the  law,  but  when  the  commandment  came  sin  revived 
and  he  died." — Rom.  vii :  9.  It  is  taught  us  by  the 
nature  of  conversion  itself.  It  is  a  turning  from  dark- 
ness to  light. — Acts  xxvi:  18.  A  man  in  darkness  sees 
not  his  condition.  His  understanding  is  darkened. — Eph. 
iv :  18.  He  walks  in  darkness:  "He  that  walketh  in 
darkness  knoweth  not  whither  he  goeth." — John  sii : 
35.  In  his  conversion,  light  shines  into  his  heart. — 2 
Cor.  iv :  6.  He  is  translated  out  of  darkness  into  the 
kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son. — Col.  i:  13.  God  calls  him 
out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light,  (1  Peter  ii :  9,) 
and  he  becomes  light  in  the  Lord. — Ephesians  v :  8. 

Not  only  is  the  sinner  in  darkness,  he  is  in  a  state 
of  death — dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  hence  the  begin- 
ning of  his  conversion  is  called  a  quickening — a  making 
alive. — Eph.  ii :  1,  5.  Now,  when  the  soul  is  made 
alive — quickened — when  light  shines  into  the  heart,  the 
sinner  sees  himself  as  he  is.  He  sees  sin  as  it  is.  Be- 
fore, he  regarded  it  as  a  trivial  affair,  but  now  he  sees 
it  to  be  exceedingly  sinful. — Rom.  vii :  13.     He  sees  it 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  25 

to  be  the  transgression  of  a  law  that  is  holy,  just,  and 
good,  (Rev.  vii :  12;)  as  committed  directly  against  God, 
(Psalm  li :  4 ;)  as  polluting,  (Job  xl :  4  ;  xlii :  6  ;  Isaiah 
vi :  5  ;)  and  as  deserving  divine  wrath,  (Ezra,  ix :  13 ; 
Psalm  eiii :  10.) 

2.  It  is  from  this  change  in  the  views  and  feelings  of 
the  sinner,  that  the  inquiry,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved?"  (Acts  xvi:  30,)  arises.  The  converts  at  Pente- 
cost were  first  pricked  in  the  heart,  and  then  they  asked 
what  they  should  do. — Acts  ii :  37.  So  it  is  now.  Un- 
til the  impenitent  sinner  changes  his  views  of  himself 
and  of  sin,  he  will  never  repent — never  seek  after  God. 
But  let  him  come  to  himself,  let  him  see  sin  in  its  true 
light,  and  he  will  arise  and  go  to  his  Father ;  he  will 
abhor  himself,  and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes. 

3.  In  conversion  the  sinner's  views  of  God  are 
changed.  The  impenitent  are  apt  to  look  upon  God  as 
being  lax  in  his  moral  government,  as  not  being  strict 
to  mark  iniquity,  and  as  being  indifferent  toward  the 
transgressions  of  his  creatures. — Psalm  x:  11;  lix  :  7; 
Ixxiii:  11  ;  xciv:  7.  Hence  the  Almighty  says:  "These 
things  hast  thou  done  and  I  kept  silence  ;  thou  thought- 
est  I  was  altogether  such  an  one  as  thyself." — Psalm  1 : 
21.  But  the  sinner,  turning  to  God,  entertains  very 
difi"erent  views.  He  now  views  God  as  a  being  that  has 
no  pleasure  in  wickedness,  and  with  whom  iniquity  can 
not  dwell. — Psalm  v  :  4.  He  now  feels  that  God  is  justly 
angry  with  him,  as  he  is  with  all  the  workers  of  iniquity, 
(Psalm  vii :  11,)  and  he  subscribes  to  the  justice  of  the 
sentence :  "  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die."  He 
stands  before  his  Maker  a  helpless,  guilty,  and  justly 
condemned  creature,  and  feels  that  he  can  plead  nothing 
but  mercy. — Luke  xviii :  13  ;  Daniel  ix  :  18. 

4.  In  conversion,  the  sinner's  views  of  the  Savior  are 


26  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

greatly  clianged.  Jesus  is  to  the  impenitent,  if  not  an 
impostor,  as  a  root  out  of  dry  ground,  which  has  neither 
form  nor  comeliness,  and  as  having  no  beauty  in  him 
that  he  should  desire  him. — Isaiah  liii :  2.  But  to  the 
sinner  turning  to  God,  he  is  the  altogether  lovely  and 
the  chief  among  ten  thousand. — Song  of  Solomon  v: 
10.  To  the  former  he  is  a  "  stone  of  stumbling  and 
rock  of  offense,"  but  to  the  latter  he  is  "precious." — 1 
Peter  ii :  7,  8. 

The  sinner  turning  to  God  is  "the  sick"  who  need 
the  physician,  (Matt,  ix :  12;)  and  Jesus,  he  sees,  is  the 
very  physician  he  needs.  How  precious  are  the  words 
of  John  unto  him  :  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved 
God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  gave  his  Son  to  be  the 
propitiatloii  for  our  sins." — 1  John  iv :  10.  He  feels 
that  he  needs  a  propitiation,  something  that  will  give 
satisfaction  to  the  Divine  Being  against  whom  he  has 
sinned,  and  he  has  to  look  out  of  himself  for  it.  He 
finds  it  in  the  blood  of  Christ. — Romans  iii:  25.  Hence, 
abandoning  all  other  grounds  of  dependence,  his  faith 
takes  hold  of  this.  He  accepts  of  Jesus  as  propitiation, 
his  prophet,  his  priest,  his  king,  his  righteousness,  his 
hope,  his  all. 

5.  The  converted  sinner  is  conscious  of  the  possession 
of  new  affections.  Before,  he  hated  God,  (Rom.  ii :  30 — 
compare  Rom.  iii:  9,)  but  now  he  loves  him. — Psalm 
cxvi :  1,  2.  He  is  emphatically  a  new  creature. — 2  Cor. 
v:  17.  He  "hates  his  former  loves  and  loves  his  former 
hates."  He  casts  sin  away  from  him  as  odious,  and  as 
the  worst  of  evils.  He  places  the  world  beneath  his 
feet.  He  knows  it  can  not  meet  his  wants  or  gratify  his 
desires.  All  his  former  associations  he  finds  to  be  un- 
congenial with  his  new  nature.  He  now  turns  his  face 
toward  heaven. 


JETEIl's  CA.MPliELLISM    EXPOSED.  27 

As  before  remarked,  the  converted  sinner  is  conscious 
that  he  now  loves  God.  He  loves  him  for  what  he  is, 
and  the  center  of  all  perfection,  and  the  source  of  all 
good.  And  he  loves  him  on  the  principle  of  reciprocity. 
"  We  love  him  because  he  first  loved  us.'" — 1  John  iv  :  19. 

The  converted  man  loves  the  Savior.  Before,  the 
name  of  Jesus  had  for  him  no  charms,  his  person  no 
attractions.  But  now  he  appreciates  him.  He  sees  in 
him  the  image  of  the  invisible  God. — Col.  i :  15.  Christ 
is  to  him  God  manifested  in  the  flesh,  (1  Tim.  iii:  16,) 
and  he  loves  him  as  such.  It  is  on  this  principle  that 
Jesus  said  to  the  Jews,  "  If  God  were  your  father  you 
would  love  me." — John  viii :  22.  He  who  does  not  love 
God  as  seen  in  Christ,  does  not  love  him  at  all.  Were 
he  in  heaven  he  would  not  love  him.  If  we  love  that 
which  is  invisible,  we  will  not  hate  it  when  made  visible. 
God  as  seen  in  Christ  is  God  as  seen  in  heaven,  and  he 
who  does  not  love  him  as  seen  in  Christ,  would  not, 
could  not  love  him  as  seen  in  heaven.  But  he  loves  the 
Savior,  not  only  because  he  is  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God,  but  also  because  '•  he  is  holy,  harmless,  undefiled 
and  separate  from  sinners." — Heb.  vii:  26.  He  loves 
because  he  "spake  as  never  man  spake." — John  vii  :  46. 
He  loves  him  because  he  died  for  him. — 2  Cor.  v:  14, 
15.  He  loves  him  because  he  has  graciously  pardoned 
his  sins. — Luke  vii :  47. 

The  converted  sinner  loves  the  people  of  God.  Be- 
fore, like  the  rest  of  the  world,  he  hated  the  followers 
of  Jesus,  (John  xv  :  18,  19;  xvii :  14;  John  iii:  13;) 
but  now  he  loves  them.  Great  prominence  is  given  to 
this  fiict,  and  great  stress  is  laid  upon  it  in  the  Scripture. 
Said  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  "  But  as  touching  broth- 
erly love,  ye  have  no  need  that  I  write  unto  you,  for 
ye  yourselves  are  taught  of  God  to  love  one  another. — 


28  AN    EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

1  Thess.  iv :  9.  And  John  says,  "If  any  man  say  he 
love  God,  and  hateth  his  brother,  he  is  a  liar ;  for  he 
that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  how 
can  he  love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen  ?  " — 1  John  iv : 
20;  compare  1  John  ii :  9,  10;  iii :  14;  iv:  7,  8;  v:  1. 

This  love  to  the  brethren  is  the  effect  of  our  love 
to  Christ,  just  as  our  love  to  Christ  is  the  effect  of 
our  love  to  God.  Just  as  Jesus  was  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  so  are  his  children,  but  in  an  inferior 
sense,  the  image  of  the  now  invisible  Jesus.  And  just 
as  sure  as  we  love  God  as  seen  in  Christ,  if  we  love 
him  at  all,  so  sure  do  we  love  Christ  as  seen  in  his 
people  if  we  love  him  at  all. 

Now,  reader,  I  have  given  you  a  "  picture"  of  what 
Baptists  mean  by  the  phrase  "  Christian  experience." 
It  differs  in  nothing,  material,  from  the  one  drawn  by 
Mr.  Jeter.  I  have  only  amplified  the  subject.  Are  you 
willing  to  join  Mr.  Lard  in  saying,  "  If  we  are  to  believe 
the  subject  to  be  part  of  Christianity,  and  to  receive 
his  picture  of  it  as  true — it  is  from  it  that  Christianity 
suffers  its  chief  disgrace?"  Reader,  is  not  this  Chris- 
tian experience  a  "  part  of  Christianity  ?  "  Is  it  most 
dishonoring  to  Christianity?  If  it  is  not  a  part  of 
Christianity,  I  should  like  to  know  what  it  is  a  part 
of?  And  I  should  like  to  know  what  would  be  left 
of  Christianity  were  this  taken  away  ?  I  should  also 
like  to  know,  if  from  this  Christianity  suffers  its  "chief 
disgrace,"  from  whence  does  it  get  its  chief  honor  ? 
Rather  is  not  Christianity  greatly  dishonored,  when  it 
is  denied  the  credit  of  enlightening  the  judgment, 
arousing  the  conscience,  illumining  and  changing  the 
heart,  infusing  into  the  soul  its  own  spirit,  painting 
God's  law  upon  the  heart,  transforming  the  soul  into 
the   image    of   Christ,  and  making  its  recipient  a    new 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  29 

creature.  And  is  all  this  not  a  matter  of  consciousness? 
Can  any  man  suppose  that  one  can  have  light  poured 
into  his  understanding,  his  moral  sensibilities  quick- 
ened, his  guilt  impressed  upon  his  conscience,  and  be 
led  to  repentance  and  to  Christ  and  have  no  experience? 
Can  he  be  so  changed  in  heart  as  to  love  the  things  he 
once  hated,  and  hate  the  things  he  once  loved,  love 
God,  and  Christ,  and  Christians,  and  yet  have  no  expe- 
rience?    Impossible. 

Reader,  I  will  here  close  this  section.  In  my  next 
I  shall  inquire  whether  it  is  right  for  such  an  experi- 
ence as  this  is  to  be  told  before  the  Church  by  an  appli- 
cant for  baptism  and  membership.  In  the  mean  time 
ponder  over  what  I  have  written. 

§  3. 
Having  described  "Christian  experience,"  I  will  now 
inquire  if  it  be  right  and  Scriptural  to  give  a  relation 
of  it  before  the  Church.  The  "  practice  "  of  doing 
so  has  been  observed  among  Baptists  from  time  imme- 
morial. But  Mr.  Campbell,  Mr.  Lard  tells  us,  has  at- 
tacked it  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  It  is  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible. 

2.  The  main  point  in  the  experience  is  a  fiction. 

3.  The  practice  fosters  superstition. 
Let  us  now  attend  to  these  reasons : 

"  1.  The  practice  is  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible." 
Mr.  Lard,  here,  begs  the  question.  He  has  not  made 
the  first  appeal  to  the  Bible  to  show  that  it  does  not 
sanction  the  practice.  He  has  given  us  unsustained 
assertion.  We  need  more  than  that  to  make  us  aban- 
don the  practice.  I  say  that  the  practice  is  sanctioned 
by  the  Bible.  Now,  reader,  "  to  the  law  and  to  the 
testimony,"  and  then  judge  between  us. 


30  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

I.  The  Bible  sanctions  the  telling  of  "  Christian  expe- 
rience" elsewhere^  and  therefore  can  not  be  opposed  to  the 
telling  of  them  before  the  Church. 

1.  Paul  told  his  on  at  least  two  occasions — once  be- 
fore his  persecutors,  (Acts  xxii ;)  and  once  before  Agrip- 
pa,  (Acts  xxvi.) 

He  again  and  again  tells  it  in  his  epistles.  To  the 
JRomans,  he  says:  "I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the 
law :  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had 
said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet.  But  sin,  taking  occasion  by 
the  commandment,  wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  con- 
cupiscence. For  without  the  law  sin  was  dead.  For 
I  was  alive  without  the  law  once:  but  when  .the  com- 
mandment came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died.  For  sin,  taking 
occasion  by  the  commandment,  deceived  me,  and  by  it 
slew  me." — Rom.  vii :  7-9,  11.  Brethren,  is  not  that 
genuine,  old-fashioned,  "Christian  experience  ?  " 

Hear  him  again  : 

"And  I  thank  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  who  hath  en- 
abled me,  for  that  he  counted  me  faithful,  putting  me 
in  the  ministry ;  who  was  before  a  blasphemer,  and  a 
persecutor,  and  injurious  :  but  I  obtained  mercy,  because 
I  did  it  ignorantly  in  unbelief.  And  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  was  exceeding  abundant,  with  faith  and  love  which 
is  in  Christ  Jesus." — 1  Tim.  i:  12-14.  Here  again  is 
good  old-fashioned  "  Christian  experience." 

Hear  him  once  more  : 

"  But  what  things  were  gain  to  me,  those  I  counted 
loss  for  Christ.  Yea,  doubtless,  and  I  count  all  things 
but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ 
Jesus  my  Lord  :  for  whom  I  have  sufi'ered  the  loss  of 
all  things,  and  do  count  them  but  dung  that  I  may  win 
Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own 
righteousness,  which    is   of  the    law,   but  that  which  is 


Jeter's  campbellisji  exposed.  31 

through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God 
which  is  by  faith :  that  I  may  know  him  and  the  power 
of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  suiferings, 
being  made  conformable  unto  his  death." — Phil,  iii : 
7-10.  Here  again,  let  me  repeat,  is  good  old-fashioned 
"Christian  experience." 

2.  The  book  of  the  Psalms  abounds  in  experimental 
narrative.     Take  the  following  specimens : 

"I  waited  patiently  for  the  Lord;  and  he  inclined 
unto  me  and  heard  my  cry.  He  brought  me  up  also  out 
of  an  horrible  pit,  out  of  the  miry  clay,  and  set  my  feet 
upon  a  rock  and  established  my  going.  And  he  hath 
put  a  new  song  into  my  mouth,  even  praise  unto  our 
God :  many  shall  see  it,  and  fear,  and  shall  trust  in  the 
Lord." — Psalms  xl :  1-3.  What  Christian  will  not 
recognize  that  as  a  good  old-fashioned  "  Christian  ex- 
perience?" « 

In  another  place  the  Psalmist  says  : 

"  Come  and  hear,  all  ye  that  fear  God,  and  I  will  de- 
clare what  he  hath  done  for  my  soul." — Psalm  Ixvi :  16. 
Now,  would  the  Psalmist  have  done  this  if  it  were  not 
sanctioned  by  the  Bible? 

II.  We  have,  at  least,  one  example  of  the  telling  of  an 
experience  hefore  the  Church,  and  therefore  the  practice 
■is  sanctioned  hy  the  Bible. 

In  Acts  ix :  26-27,  we  read :  "  And  when  Saul  was 
come  to  Jerusalem,  he  assayed  to  join  himself  to  the 
disciples ;  but  they  were  afraid  of  him,  and  believed 
not  that  he  was  a  disciple.  But  Barnabas  took  him 
and  brought  him  to  the  apostles,  and  declared  unto 
them  that  he  had  seen  the  Lord  in  the  way,  and  that  he 
had  spoken  to  him,  and  how  he  had  preached  boldly 
at    Damascus  in  the  name   of   Jesus."      Now  this  ex- 


32  AN   EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

ample  is  decidedly  in  our  favor.  Though  Paul,  here, 
did  not,  himself,  tell  his  experience,  Barnabas  did  it 
for  him.  But  this  Barnabas  would  not  have  done  if 
the  practice  were  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible. 

III.  The  Bible  requires  that  the  rite  of  haptism  he  acl- 
mtnislered  only  to  converted  perso7iSj  therefore  it  requires 
that  candidates  for  the  rite  give  evidence  of  their  conversion; 
hut  this  they  can  not  do  without^  in  some  way  or  other,  tell- 
ing their  experience. 

The  great  law  of  the  Master,  by  which  we  are  to  be 
governed  in  the  administration  of  the  rite  of  baptism, 
defines  the  character  of  those  whom  we  are  to  baptize. 
They  are  to  be  the  taught,  i.  e.,  discipled  or  converted 
persons.  (See  Matt,  xxviii :  19.  Compare  Mark  xvi: 
15,  16.)  Now  as  we  are  to  baptize  converted  persons, 
only,  we  are  authorized,  ay,  we  are  required,  to  satisfy 
ourselves  that  those  who  demand  baptism  at  our  hands 
are  converted.  But  we  know  that  no  one  destitute 
of  a  "  Christian  experience"  is  converted.  If  he  is 
converted,  be  has  discovered  the  value  and  desirable- 
ness of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  (Matt,  xiii :  44-46,)  and 
parting  with  everything  else  for  its  sake,  he  has  made 
it  his  own  ;  and  he  can  tell  something  about  it.  And 
as  the  Master  has  said :  "  He  that  loveth  father  or 
mother  more  than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me ;  and  he 
that  loveth  son  or  daughter  more  than  mo,  is  not 
worthy  of  me." — Matt,  x:  37.  And  again,  "If  a  man 
come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and 
wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and 
his  own  life  also,  he  can  not  be  my  disciple."  And 
again,  "So  likewise,  whomsoever  he  be  of  you,  that 
forsaketh  not  all  that  he  bath,  he  can  not  be  my  dis- 
ciple."— Luke  ^iv :  26-33.      I  say,  as   the   Master  has 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  33 

said  all  this,  he  would  have  us  use  every  reasonable 
precaution  in  admitting  persons  to  baptism.  He  would 
not  have  us  to  baptize  any  in  his  name,  and  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
are  "  unworthy"  of  him  or  who  "  can  not  be  his  dis- 
ciples." We  have  a  right,  therefore,  to  demand  evi- 
dence that  the  candidate  for  baptism  has  renounced 
the  world,  and  sin,  and  transferred  his  affections  to 
Christ.  In  other  words,  we  have  a  right  to  demand 
his  experience.  This,  the  very  law  under  which  we 
act,  not  only  sanctions,  but  requires. 

IV.  The  Bible  has  invested  the  Church  with  the  right 
or  axitlwrity  of  receiving  members  into  their  ^nembership 
and  communion^  and  has,  thereby,  made  them  responsible 
for  the  character  of  those  whom  they  receive,  and  has, 
therefore,  made  it  their  duty  to  satisfy  themselves  that  those 
loho  present  themselves  for  membership  are  qualified  for  it. 
But  they  are  not  qualified  for  it  unless  converted,  there- 
fore the  Bible  has  made  it  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  sat- 
isfy themselves,  that  persons  who  apply  to  them  for  mem- 
hership  are  converted.  But  this  they  can  not  do  without 
inquiring  into  their  ^^  Christian  experience."  Therefore  the 
Bible  sanctions  the  telling  of  ^'^  Christian  experience"  before 
the  Church. 

That  the  Bible  has  invested  the  Church  with  the 
right  or  authority  of  receiving  persons  into  their  mem- 
bership or  communion,  I  presume  will  not  be  disputed. 
But  lest  it  should  be,  I  will  prove  it.  Well,  Acts  ix  :  2fi, 
27,  proves  it.  Paul  assayed  to  join  himself  to  the  dis- 
ciples, but  was  at  first  rejected.  He  was  afterward  re- 
ceived. This  shows  that  the  receiving  power  was  in 
the  hands  of  the  disciples.     Eomans  xiv :  1  proves  the 

same  thing.     '•  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye, 
2* 


34  AN   EXAMINATION   OF    LARD'S    REVIEAV   OP 

but  not  to  doubtful  disputations."  This  command,  or 
exhortation,  was  addressed  to  the  Church  at  Rome.  It 
therefore  shows  that  the  Church  had  the  receiving  power. 

The  same  thing  is  taught  us  by  the  fact  that  the 
power  to  exclude  and  to  restore  is  in  the  Church.  (See 
1  Cor.  v:  4,  5.)  Here  Paul  enjoins  the  Church  to  ex- 
clude the  incestuous  member  from  their  fellowship. 
Then  in  2  Cor.  ii :  6,  7,  he  calls  upon  them  to  restore 
him — thus  recognizing  both  the  excluding  and  restoring 
power  as  being  in  their  hands.  So  he  beseeches  the 
Thessalonian  Church  to  tviihdraio  themselves  from  every 
brother  who  walked  disorderly  among  them.  That  is, 
exclude  him  ;  for  to  withdraw  is  to  exclude.  And  he 
exhorts  the  Galatian  Churches  to  restore  any  who  might 
be  overtaken  in  a  fault  in  the  spirit  of  meekness. — Gal. 
vi :  1.  These  passages  also  recognize  the  excluding 
and  restoring  power  as  being  in  the  Church.  Now  the 
power  that  excludes,  and  afterward  restores,  must  be  the 
same  power  that  receives  to  membership  in  the  first 
place. 

Nor  do  I  suppose  that  any  one  will  dispute  that  the 
Church  is  responsible  for  the  character  of  those  whom 
they  receive.  Wherever  there  is  authority  there  is  re- 
sponsibility. Now  I  would  admit  that  the  most  vigilant 
and  cautious  may,  and  sometimes  will,  be  imposed  upon. 
But  if,  through  the  want  of  vigilance  and  caution,  un- 
worthy persons  are  permitted  to  enter  the  Church,  God 
will  hold  the  Church  responsible.  Hear  the  words  of 
the  Savior  to  the  Church  at  Pergamo,  Rev.  ii :  14,  15: 
"  I  have  a  few  things  against  thee,  because  thou  hast 
there  them  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  Balaam.  *  *  * 
that  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitanes."  Now  how 
could  the  Savior  have  these  few  things  against  that 
Church,  if  they  were  not  responsible  ?     And  how  could 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  35 

they  be  responsible  unless  the  power  of  receiving  was 
in  their  hands? 

V.  The  reasons  I  have  given  above,  I  deem  amply 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  Bible  does  sanction  the 
"practice  in  question."  Let  us  now  inquire  what  do 
the  Campbellites  oppose  to  all  this  ?  Well,  they  oppose 
the  example  of  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  Acts  viii :  37  : 
"  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart 
thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  Grod."  Now  here,  they 
say,  the  eunuch  confessed  his  faith;  he  did  not  tell  his 
exjyeriejice.  Now  I  have  always  thought  that  this  ob- 
jection comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  the  Campbellites, 
for  the  reasott  that  Mr.  Campbell,  their  leader,  has  pro- 
nounced this  thirty-seventh  verse  of  the  eighth  chapter  of 
the  Acts,  ^^  spurious,^'  and  as  such,  has  left  it  out  of  his 
"•  Living  Oracles ! "  I  have  always  wondered  how 
Campbellites  could  have  the  effrontery  to  urge  this  ex- 
ample upon  us,  in  view  of  the  above  fact.  And  I  have 
also  wondered  how  their  conscience  could  be  at  ease 
in  making  that  an  invariahle  law  of  action  in  admit- 
ting persons  to  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  which, 
they  say,  is  an  interpolation — a  spurious  reading — and 
which  as  such  has  been  rejected  and  expunged  ! !  And 
I  wish  it  ever  to  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Campbell 
has  pronounced  this  thirty-seventh  verse  of  the  eighth. 
of  Acts  an  interpolation,  has  torn  it  out  of  the  text 
and  thrown  it  away,  and  that  his  followers  have  picked 
it  up  and  built  their  Church  upon  it!  According  to 
their  own  showing  they  obey  a  law  which  is  a  corrup- 
tion and  follow  an  example  which  is  spurious  ! 

But,  while  it  is  not  allowable,  for  the  above  reason, 
that  a   CampbcUite  should  oppose  the   example   of  the 


36  AN   EXABIINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

eunuch  to  our  "practice,"  I  am  willing  to  recognize 
Acts  viii :  37  as  a  part  of  tlie  word  of  God.  But 
wliile  I  recognize  it  as  a  part  of  the  word  of  God,  it 
is  only  a  part,  and  has  no  precedence  over  any  other 
part.  What  precedence,  pray,  has  Acts  viii:  37  over 
Acts  x:  47?  Here  Peter  claimed  the  right  of  Corne- 
lius and  his  friends  to  baptism,  not  on  the  ground  of 
saying  they  believed  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of 
God,  but  on  the  ground  of  their  having  received  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  truth  is,  no  one  example  can  claim 
precedence  over  any  and  every  other.  Each  example 
is  equally  authoritative,  and  the  whole,  and  not  a  part, 
should  be  taken  as  our  guide. 

Still,  I  have  this  to  say  about  the  case  of  the  eunuch  :  I 
consider  that  it  has  now  no  parallel.  I  do  not  consider 
that  he  was  an  unregenerated,  unconverted  sinner,  when 
Philip  joined  his  chariot.  I  believe  he  was  a  pious 
proselyte  of  the  Jewish  religion;  a  believer  in,  and  an 
expectant  of  the  Messiah;  but  at  that  time  ignorant  of 
the  fact  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah. 
Hence,  all  he  needed,  was  information  on  the  subject; 
and  that  was  what  Philip  gave  him.  He  asked  no 
such  question,  as,  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved?  He 
manifested  no  concern  such  as  penitents  exhibit.  The 
first  thing  that  escaped  his  lips  was,  "  See,  here  is  water  ; 
what  doth  hinder  me  from  being  baptized?"  Now,  as 
Philip  had  seen  nothing  like  conviction  or  penitence 
in  the  eunuch,  it  was  natural  for  him  to  answer :  "  If 
thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest."  And 
it  was  equally  natural  for  the  eunuch  to  reply :  "  I 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  My 
opinion  is,  that  the  eunuch  was  in  spirit,  when  Philip 
joined  his  chariot,  what  Nathaniel  was,  when  Pbilip, 
the  apostle,  invited  him  to  "  come  and  see  "  if  any  good 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  37 

thing  could  come  out  of  Nazareth — "  an  Israelite  indeed 
in  whom  there  is  no  guile." — John  i:  49.  And  hence, 
just  as  Nathaniel,  when  sufficient  evidence  was  given 
him  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  exclaimed  :  "  Rabbi, 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel ;" 
so  the  Eunuch  yielded  to  sufficient  testimony,  and  said : 
"I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  But 
he,  no  more  than  Nathaniel,  was  at  that  time  converted. 
He  had  experienced  conversion  before.  If  we  want  a 
parallel  case  to  those  which  occur  nowadays,  we  must 
go  to  Acts  ii :  38  ;  or  Acts  viii :  12 ;  or  Acts  xvi :  14, 
15,  or  verses  30-33 ;  or  Acts  xviii :  8,  9.  In  all  these 
instances,  the  apostles,  or  ministers,  who  administered 
the  rite  of  baptism,  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  conversion 
of  the  parties  baptized ;  and  I  have  no  doubt,  proceeded 
to  baptize  the  converts  upon  the  testimony  of  conversion 
thus  obtained.  And  I,  therefore,  feel  fully  authorized 
to  say,  the  example  of  the  eunuch  can  not  be  forced 
upon  us  as  the  rule  of  action. 

§4. 

The  second  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Lard,  to  justify 
Mr.  Campbell's  "  attack "  upon  our  practice,  is  this : 
"The  main  point  in  the  experience  is  a  fiction."  And 
he  tells  us  that  "main  point"  is  the  "sense  of  forgive- 
ness alleged  to  be  felt  by  the  party  at  the  moment  when 
his  sins  are  supposed  to  be  remitted." 

The  reader  has  had  laid  before  him  already*  all  that 
Mr.  Lard  has  said  in  support  of  this  second  reason.  I 
need  not,  therefore,  requote  it  here.  It  is  plain  that 
Mr.  Lard  believes  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  "sense 
of  forgiveness."     He  does  not  believe  that  any  "  feel- 

<■•  In  3  1. 


38  AN  EXAMINATION  OF   LARD's  REVIEW  OF 

ing  "  or  "  impression  "  can  prove  the  remission  of  sins. 
He  does  not  believe  that  the  question  of  pardon  is  to  be 
determined  by  any  feeling  or  impression  that  the  sinner 
may  possess.  Then  the  question  arises  by  what  it  is  to 
be  determined?  Mr.  Lard  has  not  told  us  here;  but  I 
gather  from  another  part  of  his  book,  that  he  thinks 
baptism  is  what  determines  it.  Let  me  give  you  his 
words  : 

"  There  are  two  kingdoms  on  earth  in  which  men 
exist — the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  Satan. 
These  two  kingdoms  are  separated  from  each  other  by 
one  and  the  same  line.  All  on  this  side  are  saints,  all 
on  that  sinners ;  and  all  are  on  that  side  until  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit;  then  all  thus  born  are  on  this. 
We  can  no  more  conceive  of  a  saint  in  the  kingdom  of 
Satan,  than  we  can  of  a  sinner  in  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
nor  can  we  any  more  conceive  of  a  saint  without  his 
being  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  than  we  can  of  a 
sinner  who  is.  The  instant  in  which  a  man's  sins  are 
forgiven,  he  passes  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  But  he  passes  from  the  kingdom  of 
Satan  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  instant  in  which 
he  is  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit.  Hence,  in  that 
instant,  his  sins  are  forgiven.  -i^  *  *  From  all  of 
which  we  conclude  that  a  man's  sins  are  remitted  the 
instant  in  which  he  is  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit; 
or,  inverting  the  expressions,  the  instant  in  which,  being 
begotten  of  the  Spirit,  he  is  immersed."  * 

Now  compare  with  the  above  the  following:  "Feelings 
may  exist,  but  they  prove  not  remission ;  impressions 
may  be  made,  but  they  teach  not  forgiveness.  In  most 
instances  we  may  hope  the  unfortunate  victims  of  this 

+  Kovifw,  pp.  231,  2.33. 


JETER'S    CAMPBELLIS3I    EXPOSED.  39 

delusion  to  be  sincere,"  and  then  tell  me  what  you  think. 
Is  it  not  plain  that  Mr.  Lard  disc&v ds  feeUng  and  makes 
haptisin  the  evidence  of  pardon.  A  man  is  to  determine 
hira  gracious  state  not  by  what  he  fcels^  but  by  what  he 
does. 

Now,  here  I  join  issue  with  Mr.  Lard.  And  I  want 
to  say  to  the  reader,  this  issue  is  one  of  paramount  im- 
portance. Will  he  give  me  his  serious  and  candid 
attention  while  I  discuss  it? 

I  shall  not  now  undertake  to  show  whether  sins  are 
remitted  before,  or  in,  or  after  baptism.  I  undertake  to 
show  that  the  question  of  pardon  is  to  be  determined  by 
our  feelings,  not  by  baptism. 

L     My  first  argument  is  : 

Motive  gives  character  to  action.  No  act  of  ohediencc 
can  he  acceptahle  to  God  unless  it  proceeds  from  a.  p)Toper 
motive.  The  true  and  onli/  acceptahle  motive  of  ohedience 
to  God,  is  love.  If,  therefore,  I  icould  know  whether  I 
am  accepted  in  my  act  of  ohedience,  I  must  know  that  I 
am  governed  hy  the  proper  motive.  But  this  I  can  not 
know  hut  hy  consulting  my  feelings — my  consciousness. 

We  know  that  the  human  heart  is  susceptible  of  being 
governed  by  more  motives  than  one,  and  we  know  that 
motive  gives  character  to  action.  We  know  also  that 
acceptable  actions  are  such  as  proceed  from  proper  mo- 
tives. Now,  though  God  may  have  enjoined  a  duty  and 
annexed  a  promise  to  it,  I  can  not  claim  the  promise 
simply  because  I  have  performed  the  duty.  I  must  per- 
form it  from  a  proper  motive.  But  how  can  I  know  that 
I  have  done  so,  only  as  I  consult  my  consciousness? 

Let  me  illustrate.  Jesus  says  :  "Ask,  and  it  shall  be 
given  you;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ;  knock,  and  it  shall 
be  opened   unto  you,     For  every  one   that  asketh,  re- 


40  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   KEVIEW   OF 

ceiveth/'  etc. — Luke  xi :  9,  10.  Now,  suppose  I  ask,  or 
seek,  or  knock — do  the  duties  here  enjoined — but  my 
motive  is  not  right,  will  I  be  heard?  Our  Savior  says: 
"Two  men  went  up  into  the  temple  to  pray:  the  one  a 
Pharisee  and  the  other  a  Publican." — Luke  xviii:  10-14. 
They  both  went  to  pray,  and  they  both  prayed.  They 
performed  the  same  act.  Now,  why  were  not  both 
accepted  ?  Why  is  it  that  only  one  of  them  went  down 
to  his  house  justified?  You  know  it  was  because  only 
one  of  them  was  governed  by  the  right  motive. 

Again,  John  vi :  26.  Here  we  find  persons  seeking 
Jesus.  Well,  is  not  that  right?  Does  not  the  prophet 
gay:  "Seek  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found?''  And 
does  not  the  Psalmist  say :  "  They  that  seek  the  Lord 
shall  not  want  any  good  thing?"  And,  again:  "Your 
heart  shall  live  that  seek  God?"  Yes,  they  say  all  that. 
But  they  do  not  say  we  are  to  seek  him  hecaiise  toe  eat 
of  the  loaves  and  fishes.  We  must  seek  him  loith  the 
whole  heart.  The  motive  must  be  right.  Now,  just  as 
two  men  may  pray,  and  only  one  of  them  be  heard,  or 
two  men  seek  the  Lord,  and  only  one  of  them  find  him, 
because  only  one  of  them  is  prompted  by  the  right 
motive,  so  two  men  might  be  baptized,  and,  if  baptism 
had  the  promise  of  pardon  annexed,  (which  it  has  not,) 
only  one  of  them  might  be  accepted  and  blessed  in  the 
act,  because  the  motive  of  only  one  of  them  might  be 
right.  Therefore,  the  individual  baptized  could  not 
determine  the  fact  of  his  pardon  merely  from  the  fact  of 
his  baptism  ;  for  this  would  ignore  the  motive.  In  that 
case  baptism  would  aiford  the  same  testimony  to  the 
hypocrite  it  would  to  the  sincere  penitent.  The  fact  of 
pardon,  then,  after  all,  would  have  to  be  determined  by 
an  appeal  to  the  feelings. 


Jeter's  campbellisji  exposed.  41 

II.     My  second  argument  is  : 

In  no  instance  does  the  Bible  refer  aiiy  one  to  the  fact 
of  his  haptism  as  the  proof  of  the  forgiveness  of  his  sijis, 
or  of  his  acceptance  with  God. 

The  Bible  lays  down  two  test  standards,  by  wliicli  the 
religious  professions  of  individuals  are  to  be  tried.  One 
is  for  the  trial  of  others ;  the  other  is  for  the  trial  of 
one's  own  self.  In  Matt,  vii :  16,  20,  the  Savior  says : 
"Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits."  Know  them? 
Yes ;  for  we  easily  look  at  the  "  outward  appearance." 
God  only  can  see  the  heart.  My  brother's  "fruits"  are 
all  that  I  can  see,  and  they,  therefore,  form  the  only 
standard  by  which  I  can  judge  him.  The  second  stand- 
ard, or  the  one  by  which  I  am  to  judge  myself,  is: 
"Examine  yourselves  whether  ye  be  in  the  faith  ;  prove 
your  own  selves.  Know  ye  not  your  own  selves,  how 
that  Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates?" — 2  Cor. 
xiii :  5,  6.  Now,  here  you  see  that,  in  judging  my 
brother,  I  must  look  at  his  fruits.  Not  merely  his  bap- 
tism, but  his  general  course  in  life;  but  in  judging 
myself  I  must  turn  my  eyes  within.  If  I  am  "  in  the 
faith,"  "Christ  is  in  me."  I  am  not,  then,  to  "know" 
that  I  "  am  in  the  faith,"  by  the  simple  fact  of  my 
baptism,  but  by  having  Christ  in  me.  Had  I  been  bap- 
tized a  thousand  times,  it  would  prove  nothing.  The 
question  would  still  turn  upon  this:  is  Christ  in  me? 
Baptism,  then,  is  no  part  of  this  test  standard. 

But,  perhaps  one  is  ready  to  say :  "  How  am  I  to 
know  that  Christ  is  in  me?"  Paul  will  tell  you  in 
Romans  viii:  9,  10:  "But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but 
in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  Grod  dwell  in 
you.  Now,  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
he  is  none  of  his.  And  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body 
is  dead  because  of  sin  ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of 


42  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

vigliteousness."  Now,  here  you  see  that  you  are  to  de- 
termine whether  Christ  is  in  you  by  two  facts,  namely: 

1.  Your  "  body  is  dead  because  of  sin." 

2.  Your  "  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness." 
And  is  not  this  a  matter  of  consciousness?     Can  you 

not  tell  whether  the  motions  of  sin  are  still  alive  in  you 
and  working  in  your  members  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto 
death?  (Rom.  vii:  5,)  or  whether  the  motions  of  the 
Spirit  are  there  working  in  you  to  will  and  to  do  of 
Grod's  good  pleasure  ? 

III.     My  third  argument  is  : 

Love  to  God  and  to  his  people  is  made  the  test,  in  the 
Bible,  whether  we  are  iji  a  state  of  life — of  pardon — or  not. 

In  Luke  vii:  36-48,  we  read:  "And  one  of  the 
Pharisees  desired  him  that  he  would  eat  with  him. 
And  he  went  into  the  Pharisee's  house  and  sat  down  to 
meat.  And  behold,  a  woman  in  the  city,  which  was  a 
sinner,  when  she  knew  that  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the 
Pharisee's  house,  brought  an  alabaster  box  of  ointment, 
and  stood  at  his  feet  behind  him  weeping,  and  began 
to  wash  his  feet  with  tears,  and  did  wipe  them  with  the 
hairs  of  her  head,  and  kissed  his  feet  and  anointed 
them  with  the  ointment.  Now  when  the  Pharisee  which 
had  bidden  him,  saw  it,  he  spake  within  himself,  saying. 
This  man,  if  he  were  a  prophet,  would  have  known  who, 
and  what  manner  of  woman  this  is  that  toucheth  him  : 
for  she  is  a  sinner.  And  Jesus  answering,  said  unto 
him,  Simon,  I  have  somewhat  to  say  unto  thee.  And 
he  saith,  Master,  say  on.  There  was  a  certain  creditor, 
which  had  two  debtors :  the  one  owed  five  hundred 
pence,  and  the  other  fifty.  And  when  they  had  noth- 
ing to  pay,  he  frankly  forgave  them  both.  Tell  me, 
therefore,  which  of   them  will  love  him  most  ?     Simon 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  43 

answei'ed  and  said,  I  suppose  that  he,  to  whom  he  for- 
gave most.  And  he  said  unto  him.  Thou  hast  rightly 
judged.  And  he  turned  to  the  woman,  and  said  unto 
Simon,  Seest  thou  this  woman  ?  I  entered  into  thine 
house,  thou  gavest  me  no  water  for  my  feet:  but  she 
hath  washed  my  feet  with  tears,  and  wiped  them  with 
the  hairs  of  her  head.  Thou  gavest  me  no  kiss :  but 
this  woman,  since  the  time  I  came  in,  hath  not  ceased 
to  kiss  my  feet.  Mine  head  with  oil  thou  didst  not 
anoint:  but  this  woman  hath  anointed  my  feet  with 
ointment.  Wherefore  I  say  unto  thee,  Her  sins,  which 
are  many,  are  forgiven  ;  for  she  loved  much." 

Here,  the  proof  of  this  woman's  pardon  is  found  in 
"she  loved  much."  And  this,  by  the  way,  is  the 
"sense  of  forgiveness."  Forgiveness  is  here  specified 
as  the  cause,  and  love  as  the  effect.  And  the  existence 
of  a  cause  can  be  known  by  the  existence  of  its  effect. 

But  one  may  object  and  say :  "  Forgiveness  is  a  ju- 
dicial transaction.  It  is  a  work  done  for  a  man  and 
not  in  him,  and  hence  can  not  be  felt.  It  is,  therefore, 
to  be  determined  by  an  outward  and  not  an  inioard  testi- 
mony." I  answer,  though  forgiveness  is  a  judicial 
transaction,  still  it  is  competent  for  the  Savior,  who  has 
''■  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,"  to  make  feeling  the 
proof  of  its  having  been  done.  And  the  question, 
whether  he  has  done  so,  is  to  be  decided  by  his  own 
word.  Well,  in  the  above  passage,  he  has  done  it. 
"He  who  has  had  much  forgiven,  will  love  much,"  is 
his  own  decision. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  strengthened  by  the  dec- 
laration :  "■  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God,  hath 
the  icitHcss  in  himself"  (1  John  v:  10,)  and  by  the  pro- 
visions of  the  new  covenant,  of  which  Jesus  is  the 
mediator. — Hebrews  viii.     Compare  Jeremiah  xsxi :  31, 


44  AN   EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

33.     It   specifies   two   things   whicli   Grod   does   for   the 
members  of  it,  namely : 

1.  "  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  minds,  and  write 
them  in  their  hearts," 

2.  "  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and 
their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more." 

Now,  note,  the  first  of  these  works  is  internal,  and 
therefore  proves  the  existence  of  the  other ;  for  they 
always  go  together.  God  never  writes  his  law  in.  the 
heart  of  any  one  whose  sins  he  does  not  pardon.  And 
"vice  versa,"  he  never  pardons  the  sins  of  any  one  in 
whose  heart  he  does  not  write  his  law.  He  never  does 
any  half-finished  work.  Now,  writing  God's  law  in  the 
heart  is  a  matter  of  consciousness.  For  what  else  can  it 
be  than  having  the  "  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  the 
heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost?" — Romans  v:  5.  This  secures 
the  fulfilling  of  the  law  in  us,  (Romans  viii:  4,)  for  love 
is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  (Rom.  xiii:  10.) 

Again,  in  John  v:  24,  Jesus  says:  "Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you.  He  that  heareth  my  word  and  believeth  on 
him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come 
into  condemnation  ;  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life." 
Now,  here  the  Savior  shows  that  one  who  has  "  passed 
from  death  unto  life,"  has  passed  out  of  a  state  of  con- 
demnation into  a  state  of  justification.  He  is,  therefore, 
pardoned.  Well,  what  is  the  proof  that  one  has  passed 
from  death  unto  life  ?  Baptism  ?  No  !  Love  to  the 
brethren.  "  We  Jcnow  that  we  have  passed  from  death 
unto  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren." — 1  John  iii : 
14.  If  we  can  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death 
unto  life  because  we  love  the  brethren,  we  can  know  that 
we  are  pardoned,  because  we  love  the  brethren  ;  for  no 
one  has  passed  from  death  unto  life  who  is  not  pardoned. 

The  Apostle  John  lays  great  stress  upon  love  to  the 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  45 

brethren.  He  makes  it  the  test.  Let  me  quote  several 
passages  from  his  first  epistle:  "He  that  saith  he  is 
in  the  light,  and  hateth  his  brother,  is  in  darkness 
even  until  now.  He  that  loveth  his  brother,  abideth 
in  the  light,  and  there  is  none  occasion  of  stumbling 
in  him.  But  he  that  hateth  his  brother  is  in  dark- 
ness, and  walketh  in  darkness,  and  knoweth  not  whither 
he  goeth;  because  that  darkness  hath  blinded  his  eyes." 
— Ch.  ii:  9,  10,  11.  "He  that  loveth  not  his  brother 
abideth  in  death.  Whosoever  hateth  his  brother  is  a 
murdere^^  and  ye  know  that  no  murderer  hath  eternal 
life  abiding  in  him." — Ch.  iii :  l-l,  15.  "  Beloved,  let 
us  love  one  another:  for  love  is  of  God;  and  every 
one  that  loveth  is  born  of  God,  and  knoweth  God. 
He  that  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God;  for  God  is  love. 
If  we  love  one  another  God  dwelleth  in  us,  and  his 
love  is  perfected  in  us.  If  a  man  say,  I  love  God, 
and  hateth  his  brother,  he  is  a  liar.  For  he  that  loveth 
not  his  brother,  whom  he  hath  seen,  how  can  he  love 
God,  whom  he  hath  not  seen?" — Ch.  iv :  7,  8,  20. 

Now,  let  the  reader  here  look  on  this  side,  and  on 
that  side  of  the  picture  John  has  here  drawn  : 

1.  What  does  he  say  of  him  who  does  not  love  his 
brother?  Why,  *'  he  is  in  darkness."  "  He  walketh 
in  darkness,  and  knoweth  not  whither  he  goeth."  "He 
abideth  in  death."  "He  is  a  murderer."  "He  is  a 
liar."     "  He  can  not  love  God." 

2.  What  does  he  say  of  him  who  loves  his  brother? 
Why,  "he  abides  in  the  light."  "Has  passed  from 
death  unto  life."  "Is  born  of  God."  "Knows  God." 
"  Loves  him." 

Now,  which  of  these  characters  will  Mr.  Lard  baptize? 
The  former?  And  can  he  hope  that  baptism  would 
insure  such   a  one  of  pardon?     I   will  not  indulge  the 


4G  AN   EXABIINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

thought  that  Mr.  Lard  could  or  would  answer  in  the 
affirmative.  What !  Baptism  insure  pardon  to  a  man 
walking  in  darkness,  a  hater  of  God,  a  liar,  a  murderer  ! 
Blasphemy !  ! 

But  mark  it,  Mr.  Lard  must  baptize  such  a  man,  if 
he  baptize  a  man  who  has  no  "sense  of  forgiveness." 
For  if  he  defers  the  baptism  until  the  man  "  loves  the 
brethren,"  he  defers  it  until  the  iiKin  is  horn  of  God, 
loves  God,  'is  in  the  light,  and  has  passed  from  death  unto 
life.  Then  he  must  defer  it  until  the  man  has  "  a  sense 
of  forgiveness." 

And  now,  be  it  remembered,  that  the  "  sense  of  for- 
giveness" which  we  wish  to  "elicit"  is  nothing  more  or 
less  than  that  the  convert  has  a  consciousness  of  love  to 
God  and  to  his  people.  The  possession  of  this  insures 
the  possession  of  everything  attendant  upon  and  char- 
acteristic of  conversion.  And  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
conceive,  how  any  man  who  knows  anything  about  it, 
could  possibly  call  it  a  "fiction"  or  a  "farce."  Color 
is  a  reality,  though  the  blind  can  not  see  it.  Sound 
is  a  reality,  though  the  deaf  can  not  hear  it.  So  this 
"  sense  of  forgiveness"  is  a  reality,  though  the  wicked 
do  not  feel  it.  And,  adopting  the  language  of  Mr. 
Lard,  may  I  say,  "  No  good  man  of  strong  mind  and 
unwilling  to  be  deceived,  ever  yet"  read  or  heard  read 
what  Mr.  Lard  has  here  written  "  without  feeling  him- 
self deeply  moved,  when"  he  came  to  the  word  "farce." 
And  "  it  is  difficult  to  say  which  is  the  greater,  the  pity 
of  such  a  man  for  the  deluded  creature,"  who  swallows 
down,  like  an  unsuspecting  young  bird,  what  Mr.  Lard 
has  here  written,  "  or  his  disgust  for  the  blind  guide 
who  conducts  the  process  of"  leading  him  "  into  every 
imaginable"  intricacy  "that  is  false." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  47 

§  5. 

The  third  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Lard,  why  Mr. 
Campbell  opposed  the  practice  of  relating  a  "  Christian 
experience"  before  the  Church  is,  "The  practice  fosters 
superstition." 

Mr.  Lard  adds,  "Of  the  truth  of  this  there  is  no 
more  unmistakable  evidence  than  the  chary  concessions 
of  Mr.  Jeter.  That  dreams,  visions,  sounds,  voices, 
and  specters,  were  formerly,  as  they  are  still,  common 
elements  in  the  experience  related,  does  not  admit  of 
being  denied.  ^'These  things  were  related  in  public  in 
the  presence  of  large  audiences.  Many  hearing  them 
believed  them  real.  Hence,  in  '  seeking  religion'  these 
persons  were  naturally  led  to  look  for  the  same  marvel- 
ous things  which  others  had  seen.  With  their  super- 
stitious feelings  thus  highly  excited,  how  easy  for  them 
to  persuade  themselves  that  they  had  seen  or  heard 
what  had  either  no  foundation  at  all.  or  none  beyond 
their  fancy  !  Hence,  if  the  father  had  heard  a  sound, 
nothing  but  a  sound  would  satisfy  the  son  ;  if  the  mother 
had  dreamed  a  dream,  the  daughter  was  a  dreamer  too ; 
and  thus  the  weaknesses  of  the  parents  became  the  weak  ■ 
nesses  of  their  children,  and  the  superstition  of  one 
generation  the  superstition  of  the  next." 

Reader,  what  do  you  think  of  that?  Do  you  not 
think  that  that  is  enough  to  shame  or  scare  us  out  of 
the  practice  of  having  candidates  for  baptism  and  mem- 
bership tell  their  "  Christian  experience"  before  the 
Church?  It  might  have  some  effect  were  it  not  for  one 
thing,  namely,  it  is  a  gross  misrepresentation.  We  do 
not  have  converts  to  tell  experiences  of  which  '•  dreams, 
visions,  sounds,  voices,  and  specters,"  are  "  common 
elements."  This  every  Baptist  Church  on  the  face  of 
this  broad  earth  knows. 


4S  AN   EXAMINATION    OF   LAED's   REVIEW   OF 

But  liow  about  the  "  chary  concessions  of  Mr.  Jeter?" 
Well,  reader,  turn  to  the  sixty-first  page  of  "Campbell- 
ism  Examined"  and  you  will  see.  "  He  (Mr.  Campbell) 
exposed  with  clearness  and  severity  the  illusions  and 
extravagances  which,  among  the  uncultivated  and  igno- 
rant, especially  the  negroes,  was  current  as  Christian 
experience.  These  evils  were  seen  and  deplored,  and 
opposed  by  all  well-informed  Christians,  long  before  he 
commenced  his  reformation." 

Now,  reader,  is  there  anything  in  this  "  concession  " 
that  proves  Mr.  Lard's  charge  ?  You  know  there  is  not. 
Mr.  Jeter  concedes,  what?  That  "dreams,  visions,  sounds, 
voices,  and  specters'^  are  "common  elements"  in  the  ex- 
periences related,  as  Mr.  Lard  charges?  No,  sir!  no, 
sir  ! !  And  yet,  every  Baptist  knows,  that  Mr.  Jeter 
has  conceded  as  much  as  candor  and  truth  require.  And 
had  Mr.  Lard  exercised  as  much  candor  and  ingenious- 
ness  in  his  use  of  Mr.  Jeter's  "  concession "  he  never 
would  have  penned  the  paragraph  above  quoted. 

I  would  here  say,  the  practice  does  not  "  foster  super- 
stition." And  "  there  is  no  more  unmistakable  evi- 
dence" to  prove  that  it  does  not,  than  these  gross 
misrepresentations  of  Mr.  Lard.  No  man  resorts  to 
misrepresentation  to  sustain  a  charge,  if  it  is  sustain- 
able by  direct  proof.  Mr.  Lard  charges  that  the  "  prac- 
tice" of  relating  a  "Christian  experience  before  the 
Church,"  "fosters  superstition."  And  then  attempts  to 
prove  it,  by  what?  Why,  by  telling  us  what  we  all 
know  to  be  false,  namely,  that  "  dreams,  visions,  sounds, 
voices,  and  specters"  were  "related  in  public  in  the  pres- 
ence of  large  audiences,"  as  "  common  elements  in  the 
experiences." 

Until  Mr.  Lard  (or  some  other  "  graduate  of  Beth- 
any College")    shall   sustain   this    "third   reason,"    by 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  49 

something  like  proof,  I  am  content  simply  to  deny. 
The  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  him.  His  bare  assertion 
will  not  suffice,  especially  when  it  rests  upon  misrepre- 
sentation as  its  basis. 

But  now  why  all  this  opposition  to  the  relation  of  a 
"Christian  experience"  before  the  Church?  I  have 
shown  that  the  practice  is  sanctioned  by  the  Bible.  I 
have  also  shown  that  the  "main  point  in  experience"  is 
not  a  "  fiction."  And  I  have  shown  by  consequence 
that  the  "practice"  does  not  "foster  superstition;"  for 
no  practice  sanctioned  by  the  Bible  can  foster  supersti- 
tion. And  it  can  not  foster  superstition  to  relate  before 
the  Church  what  we  have  felt  of  those  transforming  in- 
fluences which  brought  us  from  darkness  to  light  and 
from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  and  thus  fitted  us 
for  the  Divine  ordinances  and  membership  in  the  family 
of  God. 

Then  why  this  opposition?  "Is  there  not  a  cause?" 
Yes.  The  cause  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Campbellism 
is  powerless  to  the  production  of  a  "  Cliristian  experience  P^ 
It  has  all,  before  baptism,  in  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  and 
in  an  unpardoned,  unsaved,  and  condemned  state  !  It 
teaches  that  all  the  moral  fitness  required  on  the  part 
of  the  sinner  for  baptism  is  that  he  believes  th|it  "Jesus 
the  Nazarene  is  the  Messiah."*  Now  every  truly  con- 
verted person  who  comes  before  the  Church  and  gives 
a  "  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  him  with  meekness 
and  fear,"  (1  Peter  iii :  15,)  is  a  living  witness  against 
Campbellism.  He  has  the  testimony  within  him — "  in 
the  inner  man" — that  Campbellism  is  false.  And  "from 
the  abundance  of  his  heart  his  mouth  speaks,"  and 
Campbellism  fech  it.     And,  like  Ahab  by  the  prophet 

*  Christianity  Kestored,  p.  119. 


50  AN    EXAMINATION    OP   LARD's   REVIEAV   OF 

Micaiah,  it  says,  "  I  hate  him ;  for  he  doth  not  prophesy 
good  concerning  me,  but  evil." 

I  do  not  wonder  that  Campbellites  have  no  one  to  tell 
a  "Christian  experience"  before  the  Church.  He  who 
has  nothing  to  tell  should  tell  nothing.  And  I  do  not 
wonder  at  their  opposition  to  us,  on  that  score.  And 
the  only  feeling  which  that  opposition  should  produce 
in  our  hearts  is  that  o^ inty ;  and,  like  our  Divine  Mas- 
ter when  on  the  cross,  we  should  pray,  "  Father,  forgive 
them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do." 


\ 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  51 


CHAPTER  11. 

THE  DUTY  OF  THE  UNBAPTIZED  TO  PRAT. 
§1- 

WHAT  Mr.  Lard  says  on  this  subject  may  he  found 
on  pages  172  and  180,  inclusive,  of  his  book.  I 
will  make  a  long  quotation,  so  that  the  reader  may  have 
plainly  before  him  the  Campbellite  position  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

"We  assert  now,  as  we  have  ever  done,  that  there  is 
not  one  passage  in  the  Bible  which,  during  the  reign 
of  Christ,  makes  it  the  duty  of  an  unbaptized  person  to 
pray.  Mr.  Jeter  is  greatly  mistaken  if  he  supposes  that 
we  cherish  not  this  as  a  capital  item.  Wc  do  not  say 
the  sinner  may  not  pray  ;  and  when  he  does  pray,  we 
do  not  say  that  it  is  wrong.  Let  us  be  understood. 
We  do  say,  with  singular  emphasis,  that  it  is  not  the 
duty  of  the  sinner,  the  unbaptized,  to  'pray  for  the  re- 
mission of  his  sins;  that  it  is  not  made  his  duty  to  do 
so  by  the  Bible — not  even  by  implication.  It  is  against 
this  practice,  or  rather  fiction,  this  objection  is  especially 
pointed. 

"  The  sinner  is  taught  by  orthodox  preachers — blind 
guides  in  this  case,  certainly — to  pray  for  the  remission 
of  his  sins;  nay  more,  that  God  will  give  him  a  feeling 
sense  of  remission  when  it  occurs.  Accordingly,  with 
a  broken  heart  and  a  subdued  spirit,  day  after  day, 
week  after  week,  and  often  year  after  year,  in  blind — 
but,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  innocent — neglect   of  his  real 


52  AN  EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's  REVIEW   OF 

duties,  he  repeats  the  same  fruitless  prayer.  And  praj 
he  may ;  but,  unless  the  Savior  contravene  the  laws  of 
his  kingdom,  to  accept,  in  a  moment  of  awful  extremity, 
the  will  for  the  deed  of  the  sincere,  but  deluded  sinner, 
into  the  presence  of  the  Lord  he  may  come,  but  it  will 
not  be,  we  have  many  a  fear,  to  remain.  The  sinner's 
agony  of  mind  and  soul  during  this  time,  though  it  may 
stop  short  of  lunacy  or  suicide,  as  fortunately  in  most 
cases  it  does,  is  always  most  intense  and  bitter.  The 
wail  we  have  heard  from  his  heart,  his  indescribable  look 
of  despair,  his  shriek  and  smothered  groan,  strangely 
mingling  with  the  flippant,  and  in  many  instances,  ir- 
reverent cant  of  the  preacher,  '■Pray  on.,  brother;  the 
Lord  will  have  mercy  on  your  soul,'  have  never  failed, 
while  they  have  pierced  us  with  inexpressible  grief,  to 
create  in  our  mind  the  most  painful  apprehensions  as  to 
the  fate  of  those  who  cherish  and  teach  the  doctrine. 
Of  all  the  gross  and  fatal  delusions  of  Protestants,  there 
are  few  we  can  deem  worse  than  this.  It  is  a  shame 
to  the  Baptist  denomination — of  which  we  can  truly 
say,  '  With  all  thy  faults  we  love  thee  still,' —  that  it 
should  hold  and  teach  this  error.  Were  the  sinner,  in 
a  moment  of  deep  distress,  to  pray  the  Lord  to  forgive 
his  sins,  we  could  not  find  in  our  heart  to  chide  him  for 
the  deed ;  but  we  should  certainly  endeavor  to  teach  him 
the  way  of  the  Lord  more  perfectly.  But  one  thing  we 
should  never  do:  teach  him  what  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  him — to  expect  the  remission  of  his  sins  merely 
because  he  prayed  for  it.  Why  pray  for  a  blessing 
which  our  heavenly  Father  has  never  promised  to  confer 
in  this  way  or  for  this  reason,  but  which  he  certainly 
does  confer  in  another  way  and  for  a  different  reason? 
Where  is  the  advantage  of  the  prayer  unless  the  Lord 
has  promised  to  heed  it?" 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  53 

That  is  a  singular  paragraph.  The  mind  of  its  author 
must  have  been  confused  when  he  wrote  it.  It  is  con- 
tradictious. Mr.  Lard  will  not  say  "  the  sinner  may 
not  pray,  and  when  he  does  pray  he  will  not  say  it  is 
wrong,"  and  yet  he  oifers  a  prayer  which  the  Savior  can 
not  answer  without  contravening  the  laws  of  his  king- 
dom! Mr.  Lard  can  call  the  "practice"  a  ^'■fiction," 
and  yet  he  will  not  say  the  sinner  may  not  do  it,  nor 
that  it  is  wrong !  Now,  it  is  either  icrong  or  right.  But 
if  it  is  a  "  fiction,"  it  is  not  right.  If  it  requires  a  con- 
travention of  the  laws  of  the  Savior's  kingdom,  it  is  not 
right.     This  Mr.  Lard  must  know. 

I  should  like  to  know  how  Mr.  Lard  could  feel  him- 
self authorized  to  call  those  who  teach  the  sinner  to 
pray  ''■blind  guides,"  if  he  will  not  say  the  sinner  may 
not  do  it?  Or  that  when  he  does  it  he  does  wrong? 
If  the  blind  lead  the  blind  will  not  both  fall  into  the 
ditch  ? 

Again,  I  should  like  to  know  how  Mr.  Lard  can  jus- 
tify himself  in  saying  there  are  few  of  the  '^ gross  and 
fatal  delusions  of  Protestants"  he  can  "deem  worse  than 
this,"  and  yet  refuse  to  say  the  sinner  may  not  pray,  or 
that  he  does  wrong  in  doing  so.  How  can  he  say  that  it 
is  a  "  shame  to  the  Baptist  denomination  that  it  should 
hold  and  teach  this  error,"  and  yet  refuse  to  say  it  is 
wrong  for  the  sinner  to  pray?  If  the  sinner,  in  a  mo- 
ment of  deep  distress,  prays  the  Lord  to  forgive  his  sins, 
Mr.  Lard  will  not  "chide  him  for  the  deed  ;"  but  he  will 
call  us  "blind  guides  for  teaching  the  'deed.'"  He 
will  call  it  one  of  the  gross  and  fatal  delusions  of  Prot- 
estants, and  yet,  after  all,  it  may  be  right !  It  is  a  shame 
to  the  Baptist  denomination,  and  yet,  after  all,  the  sinner 
may  do  it  without  being  pronounced  wrong,  or  being 
chided  for  the  deed  ! ! 


54  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

Keadei",  let  us  leave  Mr.  Lard  to  reconcile  these  con- 
tradictory statements  as  best  he  can,  and  proceed  to 
notice  the  issue  here  made  between  the  Baptists  and  the 
Campbellites.  Mr.  Lard,  speaking  in  the  name  of  his 
entire  denomination,  and  under  the  eye  of  Mr.  Campbell, 
says : 

"  We  assert  now,  as  we  have  ever  done,  that  there  is  not 
one  passage  in  the  Bible,  which,  during  the  reign  of  Christ, 
makes  it  the  duty  of  an  unhaptized  person  to  pray." 

Here  we  join  issue.  In  reasoning  upon  this  subject 
I  shall  proceed  in  a  synthetic  manner.  And,  if  I  am 
not  greatly  mistaken,  I  shall  reach  my  conclusion  with 
a  conclusiveness  of  argument  and  proof  that  will  defy 
assault.     Reader,  let  us  proceed. 

I.     My  first  argument  is  : 

Prayer  is  a  moral  duty,  and,  like  love  to  God,  binding 
upon  every  rational  human  being,  and  therefore  has  not 
been,  and  can  not  be,  limited  Ly  the  rile  of  baptism. 

Now  let  me  amplify  and  sustain  this  argument: 

1.  Prayer  is  a  moral  duty.  Let  me  explain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  moral  as  here  used.  Jonathan  Edwards 
says:  "Those  laws  (laws  are  only  another  name  for 
duties)  whose  obligation  arises  from  the  nature  of 
things,  and  from  the  general  state  and  nature  of  man- 
kind, as  from  God's  positive  revealed  will,  are  called 
moral  laws." 

Bishop  Butler  says :  "  Moral  precepts  are  precepts, 
the  reason  of  which  we  see.  *  *  *  Moral  duties 
arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case  itself." 

Dr.  Fiddes  says  :  "  The  subject-matter  of  a  moral  law 
is  *  *  *  something  antecedently,  in  the  visible 
reason  of  it,  obligatory  to  us,  and  the  obligation  thereof 
will  always  continue  unchangeably  the  same." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  55 

His  definition  of  moral  duties  will  not  be  gainsayed. 
Well,  does  not  prayer  come  under  this  definition?  Does 
not  its  obligation  "arise  from  the  nature  of  things,"  and 
from  the  general  state  and  nature  of  mankind  ?  Can  we 
not  see  the  reason  of  the  duty?  Does  it  not  arise  out 
of  God's  relation  to  us,  and  our  dependence  upon  him? 

There  are  three  great  laws  promulgated  in  both  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  have  an  equal  claim  to 
the  epithet  moral,  namely: 

1st.  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and 
with  all  thy  strength." — Deut.  vi:  5;  Mark  xii:  30. 

2d.  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." — Lev. 
xix  :  18;  Mark  xii:  31. 

3d.  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord,  thy  God,  and  him 
only  shalt  thou  serve." — Deut.  vi :  13;  x:  20;  Matt, 
iv:   10. 

Now,  is  not  the  last  of  these  three  laws,  as  well  as 
the  first  two,  a  moral  law?  Can  we  give  a  reason  why 
we  should  love  God,  that  will  not  equally  apply  to  the 
worship  of  God?  If  one  should  ask  why  he  should  love 
God,  we  would  think  it  a  sufiicient  answer:  "Because 
he  is  God  and  you  are  his  creature."  So,  if  one  should 
ask:  "Why  should  I  worship  the  Lord?"  our  answer 
would  be  :  "  Because  he  is  the  Lord,  your  God."  Every 
relation  gives  rise  to  a  corresponding  obligation.  "A 
son  honoreth  his  father,  and  a  servant  his  master :  if  I 
be  a  father,  where  is  mine  honor?  and  if  I  be  a  master, 
where  is  my  fear?  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." — Mai.  i:  6. 
And  so  we  might  ask  here  :  "  If  he  be  the  Lord,  our 
God,  where  is  his  worship?"  It  can  not  be  denied, 
then,  that  every  rational  human  being  should  worship 
the  Lord,  his  God. 

Well,  prayer  is  an  essential  part  of  Divine  worship. 


5G  AN  EXAMINATION  OF  LARD's   REVIEW  OF 

No  man  can  worship  the  Lord  without  praying  to  him. 
There  is,  there  can  be  no  worship  paid  by  man  to  bis 
Maker  without  prayer.  The  man  who  does  not  pray 
does  not  worship." 

Again,  he  who  prays  at  all  must  pray  for  the  remis- 
sion of  his  sins.  Our  Savior  has  taught  us  to  pray  : 
"  Forgive  us  our  sins,  as  we  forgive  every  one  who  is 
indebted  to  us." — Luke  xi :  4.  If  man  worship  God  at 
all,  he  must  worship  him  as  a  sinner.  In  every  act  of 
worship  he  must  recognize  that  fact.  It  would  be  an 
insult  to  the  Almighty  for  a  sinner  to  come  into  his 
presence  and  make  no  mention  of  his  sins,  and  ask  for 
no  pardon.  This  is  taught  us  by  the  example  of  Cain. 
He  brought  of  the  ''fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering  unto 
the  Lord."  There  was  no  recognition  of  the  "promised 
seed."  No  recognition  of  the  great  truth:  "Without 
the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission."  No  ac- 
knowledgment of  his  own  guilt.  No  faith.  God  spurned 
him  and  his  offering.  The  fact  is,  we  are  sinners,  and 
we  must  recognize  that  fact  in  all  our  approaches  to  God. 
We  must  approach  him  through  the  Mediator.  We 
must  come  with  contrition  in  our  hearts,  and  confessions 
and  supplications  for  pardon  in  our  mouths.  (See  Psalm 
xxxii :  5;  Neh.  i:  6;  1  John  i:  9;  Neh.  ix:  3;  Prov. 
xxviii :  13;  Dan.  ix  :  20.) 

2.  Prayer,  being  a  moral  duty,  has  not  been,  and 
can  not  be  limited  by  the  rite  of  baptism.  Baptism  is 
a  positive  rite.  A  positive  duty  can  not,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  set  aside  or  limit  moral  obligations.  Positive 
law  creates  a  new  duty ;  it  can  not  set  aside  an  old  one. 
A  positive  law  can  be  abrogated,  and  the  duty  it  enjoins 
set  aside,  but  it  can  interfere  with  no  existing  law, 
especially  with  no  existing  moral  law.  Now,  as  prayer 
is  a  moral  duty,  resting  on   its  own   broad  foundation 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  57 

of  the  Divine  relationship  to  us,  baptism  can  not  inter- 
fere with  it. 

How  such  a  thought  as  this,  that  a  person  must  be 
baptized  before  it  is  his  duty  to  pray,  ever  entered  into 
Mr.  Lard's  head,  I  can  not  imagine.  Why,  it  is  to 
place  baptism  into  antagonism  with  the  moral  claims  of 
God,  It  is  to  make  every  uubaptized  person  &  practical 
atheist,  and  to  justify  him  in  his  atheism.  He  lives  as 
if  there  was  no  God !     The  thought  is  preposterous. 

II.     My  second  argument  is  : 

Prayer  is  a  duty  binding  upon  all  rational  human  be- 
ings, because  the  Bible  condemns  those  ivho  do  not  pray. 

That  the  Bible  condemns  those  who  do  not  pray,  the 
following  passages  prove,  Job  xxi :  7  :  "  Wherefore  do 
the  wicked  live,  become  old,  etc.  *  *  *  They  say 
unto  God,  Depart  from  us;  for  we  desire  not  the  knowl- 
edge of  thy  ways.  What  is  the  Almighty  that  we  should 
serve  him,  and  what  profit  should  we  have  if  we  pray 
unto  him  ?  "  Here  these  passages  are  called  icicked,  and 
one  proof  of  their  wickedness  is  their  contemning  p/'oyer 
to  God.  The  Psalmist  says  :  ''  The  wicked  through  the 
pride  of  his  countenance  will  not  seek  after  God.  God 
is  not  in  all  his  thoughts."  Again :  "  Have  all  the 
workers  of  iniquity  no  knowledge,  who  eat  up  my  people 
as  they  eat  bread,  and  call  not  upon  the  Lord?" — Psalm 
xiv  :  6.     See  also  Psalm  liii :  4. 

In  Psalm  Ixxix:  7,  the  Psalmist  prays:  "Pour  out  thy 
wrath  upon  the  heathen  that  have  not  known  thee,  and 
upon  the  kingdoms  that  have  not  called  upon  thy  name." 
Now,  was  not  this  prayer  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost? 
Then  were  not  the  kingdoms  guilty  in  not  calling  upon 
God? 

Jer.  X :  25  :  "  Pour  out  thy  fury  upon  the  heathen  that 
3* 


58  AN    EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

know  thee  not,  and  upon  the  families  that  call  not  on  thy 
name,"  Jeremiah  never  would  have  offered  such  a  peti- 
tion as  this,  had  he  not  regarded  this  not  calling  upon 
God's  name  as  a  sin. 

One  more,  Dan.  ix :  13  :  "Yet  made  we  not  our  prayer 
before  the  Lord  our  God,  that  we  might  turn  from  our 
iniquities  and  understand  thy  truth." 

Now,  all  these  passages  clearly  show  that  a  neglect  of 
prayer  is  a  sm.  Then  prayer  is  a  duty,  otherwise  a  neg- 
lect of  it  would  not  be  a  sin.  For  sin  is  not  imputed 
when  there  is  no  law. — Rom.  v :  13.  For  where  no  law 
is  there  is  no  transgression. — Rora.  iv :  15.  But  perhaps 
one  may  call  for  a  passage  from  the  New  Testament  mak- 
ing a  neglect  of  prayer  a  sin.  Well,  here  it  is  :  "  For 
the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all 
ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  who  hold  the 
truth  in  unrighteousness ;  because  that  which  may  be 
known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them  ;  for  God  hath  showed 
it  unto  them.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the 
creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood 
by  the  things  that  are  n)ade,  even  his  eternal  power  and 
Godhead  ;  so  that  they  are  without  excuse ;  because 
that  when  they  knew  God  they  glorified  him  not  as  God, 
neither  were  thankful  ;  but  became  vain  in  their  imagi- 
nations, and  their  foolish  heart  was  darkened.  Profess- 
ing themselves  to  be  wise,  they  became  fools,  and 
changed  the  glory  of  the  uncorruptible  God  into  an 
image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  and  to  birds,  and 
four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things.  Wherefore 
God  also  gave  them  up  to  unclean ness  through  the  lusts 
of  their  own  hearts,  to  dishonor  their  own  bodies  be- 
tween themselves  :  who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into 
a  lie,  and  worshiped  and  served  the  creature  more  than 
the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  forever.     Amen.     For  this 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  59 

causa  God  gave  them  up  unto  vile  affections,"  etc. — 
Horn,  i:  18-2(3. 

Now,  to  what  truth  as  held  in  unrighteousness,  does 
the  apostle  allude  to  here,  but  the  truth  concerning  the 
being  of  God?  And  what  is  it  to  hold  this  truth  ia 
unrighteousness,  except,  when  one  knows  God,  to  glorify 
him  not  as  God,  and  to  be  thankful  ?  And  for  what 
cause  did  God  give  them  up  to  vile  affections,  but  for 
that  of  changing  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  wor- 
shiping and  serving  the  creature  more  than  the  Crea- 
tor? Well,  we  know  that  no  man  can  glorify  God  aa 
God,  who  does  not  pray  to  him.  And  does  not  this 
charge  of  worshiping  and  serving  the  creature  more 
than  the  Creator,  imply  that  the  Creator  should  be  wor- 
shiped and  served  by  those  of  whom  the  apostle  here 
complains  ?  Yes,  the  entire  passage  shows  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  all  who  know  God  to  glorify  him,  and  worship 
him. 

Now,  can  all  the  above  be  true,  and  yet  it  also  be 
true  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  an  un baptized  person  to 
pray?  If  an  unbaptized  person  should  not  pray,  then 
an  unbaptized  person  who  knows  God  may  refuse  to 
glorify  him  as  God,  in  this  respect,  and  still  commit  no 
sin.  But  unbaptized  persons,  and  all  others  who  know 
God,  and  yet  do  not  worship  and  serve  him,  commit 
sin ;  therefore  it  is  the  duty  of  unbaptized  persons  to 
worship  God. 

III.     My  third  argument  is  : 

The  uniform  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  on  the 
duties  of  prayer,  show  that  no  change  has  taken  place  with 
regard  to  the  extent  of  its  obligations.  Not  the  least  hint 
is  given  that  it  is  circu7nscribed  by  baptism^. 

Now,  an  examination  of  all  the  lessons  that  the  Savior 


60  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

and  his  apostles  have  given  us  on  this  subject,  will 
demonstrate  this  argument.  I  will  give  book,  chapter, 
and  verse,  where  these  lessons  are  to  be  found,  and  let 
the  reader  examine  for  himself. 

The  first  lesson  is  found  in  Matt,  vi :  5-13,  inclusive. 
Reader,  get  your  New  Testament  and  turn  to  the  place. 
Well,  you  see  the  Savior  begins  by  saying:  "When  thou 
prayest,"  etc.  He  gives  no  injunction ;  he  simply  gives 
directions.  He  talks  about  prayer  just  as  be  does  about 
almsgiving  and  fasting.  He  simply  tells  us  liow  we  are 
to  give  alms,  how  we  are  to  fast,  and  how  we  are  to 
pray.  There  is  not  the  remotest  allusion  to  baptism. 
And  we  have  no  more  authority  for  saying  the  unbap- 
tized  should  not  pray,  or  that  it  is  not  their  duty  to 
pray,  than  we  have  for  saying  it  is  not  their  duty  to 
give  alms  or  fast. 

Our  second  lesson  is  in  Matt,  vii :  7-11,  inclusive. 
Christ  simply  says:  "Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you; 
seek,  and  ye  shall  find;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened 
unto  you,"  etc.;  but  gives  no  hint  about  baptism.  But 
note  one  thing :  these  two  passages  are  a  part  of  our 
Lord's  Sermon  on  the  Mount;  a  part  of  his  ''sayings," 
therefore,  to  which  he  alludes  in  Matt,  vii :  24-27. 
"  Therefore  whosoever  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine, 
and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  to  a  wise  man,  who 
built  his  house  upon  a  rock.  And  the  rain  descended, 
and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and  beat  upon 
that  house  ;  and  it  fell  not,  for  it  was  founded  upon  a 
rock.  And  every  one  that  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine, 
and  doeth  them  not,  shall  be  likened  unto  a  foolish  man, 
which  built  his  house  upon  the  sand.  And  the  rain  de- 
scended, and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and 
beat  upon  that  house  ;  and  it  fell,  and  great  was  the 
fall  of  it."     Now,  is  not  this  true  of  un baptized  as  well 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  61 

as  baptized  persons?  Will  Mr.  Lard  say,  will  any  one 
else  say,  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  unbaptized  persons  to 
keep  these  "sayings"  of  Christ?  Will  he  say  that  an 
unbaptized  person  may  not  keep  these  sayings  and  yet 
not  be  like  the  "foolish  man?"  He  must  say  it  or 
abiindon  his  position.  But  I  scarcely  think  he  will 
have  the  temerity  to  say  it. 

The  third  lesson  is  found  in  Luke  si:  1-13,  inclusive. 
Here  the  Savior  simply  reiterates  the  instruction  given 
in  the  two  preceding  lessons,  with  the  addition  of  a  les- 
son on  importunity.  Still,  there  is  not  one  word  about 
baptism. 

The  fourth  lesson  is  found  in  Luke  xviii :  1-8,  inclu- 
sive. Still  not  one  word  about  baptism.  This  fact  is 
very  significant,  when  we  remember  that  the  parable  here 
recorded  was  spoken  for  the  express  purpose  to  teach 
that  '■^  men  ought  always  to  pray  and  not  to  faint." 
Had  the  Savior  intended  that  during  his  reign  prayer 
should  be  the  duty  of  none  but  the  baptized,  here  was 
the  place  for  him  to  have  said  so.  Or  if  it  had  only 
been  said  "  He  spoke  a  parable  to  this  end,  that  bap- 
tized men  ought  always  to  pray  and  not  to  faint  I  "  But 
he  did  not  say  so,  and  Mr.  Lard's  position  must,  as  yet, 
go  without  proof. 

Mr.  Lard  asks  concerning  this  parable  :  "  Now,  will 
this  language  apply  to  sinners?"  Why  did  he  not  ask. 
Will  it  apply  to  unbaptized  persons?  But  he  continues: 
'■'■Are  they  (pinners)  God's  oicn  elect  who  cry  day  and  night 
unto  him  ?  So  to  assert  would  be  shocking."  I  would 
reply  by  asking:  "Are  all  baptized  persons  "God's  own 
elect?'  "  Are  none  of  his  elect  to  be  found  among  the 
unbaptized?  "So  to  assert  would  be  shocking."  Yet, 
Mr.  Lard  must  so  assert,  or  admit  that,  with  his  own 
interpretation,  this  parable  is  still  against  him. 


62  AN    EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

Mr.  Lard  adds:  "And  yet  clearly  'God's  own  elect' 
are  the  persons  for  whose  benefit  the  parable  was  spoken, 
and  whom  it  teaches  to  pray  always  and  not  to  faint.  It 
has  no  reference  whatever  to  sinners."  Mr.  Lard,  then, 
limits  the  term  "men"  in  the  introduction  to  the  para- 
ble by  the  term  "  elect"  used  at  the  close  of  it.  Now, 
is  he  prepared  to  say,  that  the  ''■ought"  applies  only  to 
the  "elect?"  Then  he  justifies  all  the  rest  of  mankind 
in  their  rebellion  and  atheism.  I  readily  grant  that  the 
elect  only  will  pray — that  it  is  characteristic  of  them 
only,  that  they  cry  unto  God  day  and  night.  But  I  do 
not  grant  that  none  others  ought  to  pray.  I  am  quite 
sure  that  the  "elect"  only,  love  God:  but  I  am  quite 
as  sure  that  "men,"  whether  "elect"  or  not,  '^  ought" 
to  love  God.  Now,  suppose  Jesus  had  spoken  a  parable 
to  this  end,  that  "  men  ought  always  to  love  God  and 
not  rebel  against  him  ;"  and  had  closed  by  saying,  "And 
will  not  God  avenge  his  own  elect  who  do  continually 
love  him,"  would  Mr.  Lard  limit  the  term  "men"  by 
the  term  "elect?"  Would  he  say  the  "ought"  applied 
only  to  the  elect?  The  cases  are  parallel.  No ;  wo 
should  say,  like  the  Savior  to  the  Pharisees :  "  Woe 
unto  you,  Pharisees !  for  ye  tithe  mint  and  rue  and  all 
manner  of  herbs,  and  pass  over  judgment  and  the  love 
of  God  :  these  ought  ye  to  have  done.,  and  not  to  leave 
the  other  undone." — Luke  xiv:  42.  (Compare  Matthew 
xxiii :  23.)  Yes,  "these  ought  ye  to  have  done." 
These  Pharisees  were  not  God's  elect,  3Ir.  Lard.  And 
yet  they  ought  to  have  done  judgment,  and  love,  and 
faith.  And  to  do  these  things  includes  all  those  exer- 
cises legitimate  to  them;  and  prayer  is  one.  I  feel, 
therefore,  to  say  with  emphasis,  men  ought  to  pray. 
And,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Jeter,  I  would  say,  "Christ 
taught  that  /?ieH  —  not   baptized    men  merely,    but  men 


JETER  S    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  63 

irrespective  of  their  character,  relations,  or  professions 
— aU  men — ought,  are  under  obligation  to  pray."  And 
now,  if  you  say  of  me  as  you  have  of  Jeter,  "  It  is  surely 
a  pity  that  a  man  who  affects  to  oppose  nothing  but 
error,  should  yet  so  often  do  so  with  those  artifices  with 
which  dishonest  men  alone  stoop  to  oppose  the  truth," 
the  only  reply  I  will  make  is,  "  Physician,  heal  thy- 
self." 

The  fifth  lesson  is  found  in  1  Tim.  ii :  1-8:  "I  ex- 
hort, therefore,  that,  first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers, 
intercessions,  and  giving  of  thanks  be  made  for  all  men: 
for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in  authority;  that  we 
may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  all  godliness  and 
honesty.  For  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight 
of  God  our  Savior,  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved, 
and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For 
there  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between  God  and 
men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus;  who  gave  himself  a  ran- 
som for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time.  Whereunto 
I  am  ordained  a  preacher  and  an  apostle,  (I  speak  the 
truth  in  Christ  and  lie  not,)  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles 
in  faith  and  verity.  I  will  therefore  that  men  pray 
everywhere,  lifting  up  holy  hands  without  wrath  and 
doubting." 

Now,  reader,  do  you  believe  that  the  man  who  wrote 
the  above  entertained  the  notion  that  it  was  the  duty 
only  of  the  hajitized  to  pray?  Note,  Paul  first  exhorts 
that  supplications,  prayers,  etc.,  be  made  for  all  men; 
and  then,  secondly,  says,  I  will  that  men  pray  every- 
where;  and  gives  as  his  reason: 

1.  ''This  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God 
our  Savior,  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to 
come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.'' 

2.  "  For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between 


64  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD'S   REVIEW   OF 

God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus ;  who  gave  himself 
a  ransom  for  all."  Now,  can  we  believe  that  for  these 
reasons  we  should  pray  for  all  men,  and  that  men  every- 
where should  pray  and  yet  believe  that  no  unbaptized 
person  should  pray!  No:  what  Paul  would  have  us  do 
for  all  men,  he  would  have  men  everywhere  to  do  for 
themselves ;  and  that  irrespective  of  baptism.  Shall  we 
receive  this  lesson  from  Paul  as  a  teacher  of  the  Gen- 
tiles in  faith  and  verity,  with  his  reasons  specified,  and 
yet  qualify  the  whole  by  thrusting  in  baptism  ?  Let 
him  do  it  that  dares ;  but  we  can  take  no  such  liberties 
with  the  word  of  God  ! 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  is : 

Unbaptized  persons  prayed,  and  prayed  acceptably, 
after  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Christ, 

The  question  comes  up  here,  at  what  period  are  we 
to  date  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Christ  ?  Mr. 
Lard,  1  have  no  doubt,  would  answer,  "  At  the  day  of 
Pentecost."  But  what  would  he  do  if  called  on  for  the 
proof?  I  presume  Mr.  Lard  means,  by  the  "  reign  of 
Christ,"  what  is  called  his  Messianic  reign.  Well,  when 
did  that  commence?  Reader,  I  will  quote  a  few  texts 
and  let  you  form  your  own  conclusion.  "In  those  days 
came  John  the  Baptist,  preaching  in  the  wilderness  of 
Judea,  and  saying,  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  at  hand." — Matt,  iii:  1,  2.  "And  from  the  days  of 
John  the  Baptist  until  now  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suf- 
fereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force.'' — Matt, 
xi :  12.  Now,  reader,  put  these  two  texts  together,  and 
then  say  what  they  teach.  Was  it  not  the  Messianic 
kingdom  that  John  the  Baptist  announced  as  being  at 
handy  and  was  it  not  the  Messianic  kingdom  that  from 
his  days  suffered  violence?     Then   of  course  it  was  in 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  65 

existence  before  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  for  that  which 
has  no  existence  can  not  suffer  violence. 

Again,  Matt,  xxi:  31:  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that 
the  publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  before  you."  Now  what  kingdom  did  these  pub- 
licans and  harlots  go  into?  Was  it  not  the  Messianic 
kingdom?  Then  it  existed  before  Pentecost;  for  they 
could  not  go  into  a  kingdom  that  had  no  existence. 

Once  more,  Luke  xvi :  16:  "The  law  and  the  prophets 
were  until  John  ;  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it."  Now 
does  not  this  mean  the  Messianic  kingdom  ?  Then  it 
existed  before  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

I  am  reminded  here  of  what  I  once  read  in  a  debate 
between  Mr.  Benjamin  Johnson,  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  Mr.  J.  P.  Lancaster,  of  the  Camp- 
bellite  order.  Mr.  Lancaster  quoted  this  text  and  then 
said,  in  substance,  thus:  (I  quote  from  memory:)  "My 
friends,  I  wish  you  to  remember  that  my  friend,  Mr. 
Johnson,  holds  that  the  Christian  kingdom  is  only  a 
continuation  of  the  Jewish.  Now  if  it  is,  then  these 
persons  were  already  in  it.  Now  I  call  upon  Mr.  John- 
son to  explain  how  persons  who  were  already  in  a  king- 
dom could  be  said  to  press  into  it."  When  I  read  this 
I  was  anxious  to  see  how  Mr.  Johnson  would  meet  it. 
Well,  he  met  it  in  this  way:  "My  friends,  I  wish  you 
to  remember  that  my  friend,  Mr.  Lancaster,  holds  that 
the  Christian  kingdom  was  not  set  up  until  Pentecost. 
Then,  at  this  time,  according  to  him,  there  was  no  Chris- 
tian kingdom !  Now  I  want  him  to  tell  into  what 
kingdom  these  people  did  press!"  "A  theological  'dog- 
fall  !'  ^'  said  I.  Neither  of  them  answered  the  other's 
question.  Neither  could  do  it  consistently  with  his 
hypothesis.     And  hence  each  refuted  the  other  1     No  ; 


66  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW   OF 

the  truth  is  just  as  this  text  declares:  The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  until  John.  *  *  *  Since  that  time 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached.  And  here  we  date 
the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Christ. 

But  perhaps  Mr.  Lard  may  admit  the  existence  of 
the  kingdom,  but  still  contend  that  Jesus  did  not  reign 
in  it  until  Pentecost.  Then  I  suppose  he  will  let  us 
have  a  kingdom  without  a  king  !  Let  me  read  Mr.  Lard 
a  text  on  this  point,  (Matt,  xxi:  5:)  "Tell  ye  the 
daughter  of  Zion,  Behold  thy  king  cometh  unto  thee,  meek, 
and  sitting  upon  an  ass,  and  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass." 
(Compare  Zech.  ix:  9.)  Was  Jesus  Christ  a  king  when 
he  thus  rode  into  Jerusalem?  He  was,  if  Matthew's  tes- 
timony is  true.  And  let  me  ask  Mr.  Lard  what  he  un- 
derstands by  the  Savior's  preface  to  his  last  and  great 
command,  (Matt,  xxviii :  18:)  "All  power  is  given  unto 
me  in  heaven  and  in  earth?"  Is  not  the  word  power 
here  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  authority?  This  the 
original  demands.  Well,  if  all  authority  in  heaven  and 
in  earth  was  at  this  time  given  to  Jesus  Christ,  what 
authority  was  given  him  at  Pentecost?  If  all  authority 
is  once  given,  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  any  more  to 
give  ! 

Will  Mr.  Lard  say,  "  I  admit  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a 
king  before  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  he  had  no  king- 
dom?" Then  you  give  us  two  anomalies:  A  kingdom 
without  a  king !  a  king  without  a  kingdom  ! !  No,  Mr. 
Lard,  give  up  your  hypothesis,  and  believe  what  is  so 
plainly  taught,  and  with  us  date  the  commencement  of 
the  reign  of  Christ  from  the  days  of  John  ! 

Having  ascertained  the  commencement  of  the  reign 
of  Christ  to  be  from  the  days  of  John,  the  first  exam- 
ple of  an  unbaptized  person's  praying,  and  praying  ac- 
ceptably, during  the  reign  of  Christ,  is  found  in  Luke 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  67 

xviii:  13,  14:  "And  the  publican  standing  afar  off,  would 
not  lift  up  so  much  as  his  eyes  unto  heaven,  but  smote 
upon  his  breast  saying,  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner. 
I  tell  you,  this  man  went  down  to  his  house,  justified 
rather  than  the  other;  for  every  one  that  exalteth  him- 
self shall  be  abased;  and  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall 
be  exalted." 

Note  particularly,  this  publican  prayed  for  the  remis- 
sion of  his  sius.  The  very  thing  that  Mr.  Lard  says  no 
unbaptized  person  is  authorized  by  the  Bible  to  pray  for, 
not  even  by  implication  !  And  note  also  that  he  was 
heard.  "  I  tell  you,"  says  Jesus,  "  this  man  went  down 
to  his  house  just  if  ed,^'  therefore,  pardoned;  for  justifi- 
cation includes  pardon. 

Perhaps  the  reader  is  curious  to  know  how  Mr.  Lard 
disposes  of  this  case.  Well,  reader,  here  is  all  he  says  : 
"  The  next  case  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Jeter  is  that  of  the 
publican  who  went  up  to  the  temple  to  pray.  But  this 
is  not  a  case  in  point.  We  have  not  denied  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  a  Jew,  living  under  the  law,  to  pray.  What 
we  deny  is  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  ungodly,  during 
the  reign  of  Christ,  to  pray.  But  even  the  case  of  the 
publican  does  not  determine  who,  i.  e.,  whether  saint  or 
sinner — is  to  pray,  but  only  that  whoever  prays  must, 
if  he  pray  acceptably,  pray  toith  deep,  heartfelt  humility. 
This  is  what  the  case  determines,  no  more." 

Reader,  let  us  examine  what  Mr.  Lard  has  here  said. 

1.  ''This  is  not  a  case  in  point.  We  have  not  denied 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  a  Jew,  living  under  the  law,  to 
pray."  Is  this  case  not  in  point?  It  is,  because  the 
publican  was  an  unbaptized  person  ;  he  prayed  during 
the  reign  of  Christ,  and  he  was  heard  !  But  "  we  have 
not  denied  that  it  was  the  duty  of  a  Jew,  living  under 
the  law,  to  pray."    What  does  Mr.  Lard  mean  by  "living 


68  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

under  the  law?"  Does  he  not  mean  under  the  law  dis- 
pensation? He  must  mean  this.  Well  then,  I  deny 
that  the  publican  lived  under  the  law.  The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  until  John,  not  after  him.  But  the  pub- 
lican went  into  the  temple  to  pray  after  John  ;  there- 
fore after  the  termination  of  the  law  dispensation. 

2.  "  What  we  deny  is,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  un- 
godly, during  the  reign  of  Christ  to  pray."  Is  this  what 
you  deny,  Mr.  Lard?  You  set  out  by  saying:  "  We  as- 
sert now,  as  we  have  ever  done,  that  there  is  not  one 
passage  in  the  Bible  which,  during  the  reign  of  Christ, 
makes  it  the  duty  of  an  unhaptized  person  to  prayi'^ 
Now  do  you  call  these  identical  propositions?  Do  you 
intend  to  say  that  all  unbaptized  persons  are  ungodly 
persons?  This  you  must  intend  to  say,  or  you  have 
shifted  your  ground.  Be  it  remembered,  that  in  Mr. 
Lard's  estimation  all  unimmersed  persons  are  unbaptized 
persons.  He  must  include  under  the  epithet  unbaptized 
all  Pedobaptists  except  such  as  have  been  immersed. 
Will  he  say  they  are  all  ungodly  ?  He  must  say  it,  or 
he  denies  more  than  he  has  here  stated.  What  he  de- 
nies is,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  unbaptized  persons — not 
merely  the  ungodly — during  the  reign  of  Christ,  to 
pray. 

3.  "  But  even  the  case  of  the  publican  does  not  de- 
termine who,  /.  €.,  whether  saint  or  sinner,  is  to  pray.'' 
Now,  why  did  he  not  say,  "  i.  e.,  whether  baptized  or 
unbaptized,  is  to  pray?"  The  parties  in  the  issue  should 
be  kept  in  the  argument.  But  does  not  the  case  of  the 
publican  determine  who  is  to  pray?  Does  it  not  show 
that  the  duty  is  not  exclusively  binding  on  the  saints? 
Did  he  say,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  saint?  " 

4.  I  agree  in  part  with  Mr.  Lard's  final^remark.  I 
agree  that  the  example  of  the  publican   teaches  "that 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  69 

whoever  prays  must,  if  he  pray  acceptably,  pray  with 
deep,  heartfelt  humility."  But  I  deny  that  the  case  de- 
termines "  no  more''  than  this.  The  case  determines  Mr. 
LariVs  position  to  be  false. 

Our  second  example  of  an  unbaptized  person's  pray- 
ing, and  praying  acceptably,  during  the  reign  of  Christ, 
is  that  of  the  thief,  Luke  xxiii:  42,43.  "Lord,  remem- 
ber me  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom,"  was  the 
prayer.  "  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise," 
was  the  gracious  answer. 

Mr.  Lard  says  of  this  example,  it  "has  no  reference 
whatever  to  the  question  in  dispute.  Besides  being  a 
case  which  can  never  happen  again,  and  intended  to 
teach  no  general  duty,  it  occurred  at  a  time  when  bap- 
tism was  obligatory  on  no  one.  We  shall,  therefore, 
dismiss  it  without  further  notice." 

1.  You  say,  "  This  case  has  no  reference  whatever  to 
the  question  in  dispute!"  How  can  you  say  that?  Is 
not  the  question  in  dispute  whether,  during  the  reign 
of  Christ,  unbaptized  persons  ought  to  pray?  Was  not 
the  thief  an  unbaptized  person?  Then  is  he  not  an  ex- 
ample against  you  ?     Ah  !  "  that 's  the  rub." 

2.  You  say  it  is  a  "  case  that  can  never  happen 
again."  Well,  suppose  it  can  not,  what  then  ?  I  do 
not  suppose  another  thief  will  ever  be  crucified  with 
Christ,  as  he  will  never  again  be  crucified.  But  may 
not  another  unbaptized  man  in  the  dying  hour  say, 
"Lord,  remember  me?"  And  should  not  this  example 
encourage  him  ? 

3.  You  say,  "  It  occurred  at  a  time  when  baptism  was 
obligatory  on  no  one."  How  did  you  find  that  out? 
We  have  no  proof,  or  any  good  reason  to  believe,  that 
baptism  ceased  to  be  practiced  from  the  time  of  John's 
first  immersion  in  the  Jordan.     While  John  was  bap- 


70  AN   EXAMINATION    OI-'    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

tizing  in  -^non,  near  to  Salem,  did  not  Jesus  come  with 
his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  tarry  with 
them  and  baptize? — John  iii:  22.  And  was  it  not  re- 
ported that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than 
John? — John  iv :  1.  Was  it  ever  disputed?  Never, 
except  that  Jesus  did  not,  but  his  disciples  did  baptize. 
Well,  did  they  not  baptize  by  his  authority?  And  is  it 
not  reasonable  to  conclude  that  as  Jesus  so  begun  his 
ministry,  he  would  so  continue  it?  Nay,  is  not  this  a 
necessary  inference?  In  the  absence  of  all  testimony 
to  the  contrary,  we  are  bound  so  to  conclude.  Hence 
Mr.  Lard's  assertion,  that  "Baptism  was,  at  this  time, 
obligatory  on  no  one,"  is  perfectly  gratuitous. 

Our  third  example  of  an  unbaptized  person's  praying, 
and  praying  acceptably,  during  the  reign  of  Christ,  is 
the  case  of  Saul,  Acts  ix ;  6  :  "And  he,  trembling  and 
astonished,  said:  'Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to 
do?'"  This  is  a  prayer.  "And  the  Lord  said,  'Arise 
and  go  into  the  city,  and  it  shall  be  told  thee  what  thou 
must  do.'  "  This  is  the  answer.  Well,  what  does  Mr. 
Lard  say  about  this  ?     He  says  : 

"  1.  We  readily  grant  that  Saul  prayed,  but  deny  that 
he  prayed  because  Christ  made  it  his  duty  to  pray.  He 
prayed  precisely  as  any  other  Jew,  in  deep  sorrow,  would 
have  prayed,  and  for  no  other  reason. 

"  2.  That  his  prayer  was  acceptable  to  the  Lord  is  not 
known.  It  may,  or  it  may  not  have  been,  for  aught 
that  appears  in  the  narrative.  The  Lord  merely  stated 
the  fact  that  he  prayed,  not  that  he  accej^ted  the  prayer. 
To  state  a  fact,  as  a  fact,  is  one  thing ;  to  accept  it  as 
an  act  of  worship  is  another.  We  must  first  show  that 
the  Lord  has  made  it  the  duti/  of  the  sinner  to  pray, 
before  we  can  infer  that  his  prayer  is  acceptable.  And 
as  to  Ananias  being  sent  to  instruct  and  baptize  Saul, 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  71 

in  consequence  of  the  acceptahleness  of  his  p^'ayer^  it  is  a 
sheer  fiction.     There  is  no  evidence  that  it  is  true. 

"  The  most  that  can  be  said  of  the  case  of  Sau)  (and 
this  much  certainly  can  be  said)  is,  that,  when  Ananias 
commanded  him  to  be  baptized  and  wash  away  his  sins, 
he  commanded  him  to  do  so  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  And  so  we  say:  Command  the  sinner,  not  to 
pray  for  the  remission  of  his  sins,  (for  the  Lord  has  not 
enjoined  it  on  him ;)  but  to  be  baptized  and  wash  them 
away,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.  This  form  of 
prayer,  and  under  these  circumstances,  we  approve  from 
our  heart." 

Now,  reader,  let  us  take  up  and  examine  what  Mr. 
Lard  has  here  said,  item  by  item  : 

1.  "We  readily  grant  that  Saul  prayed."  Very  well. 
This  point,  then,  is  settled. 

2.  "  But  deny  that  he  prayed  because  Christ  made  it 
his  duty  to  pray."  Who  ever  said  he  did?  He  had  just 
now,  for  the  first  time,  recognized  Jesus  as  the  Christ. 
Up  to  this  moment  he  had  looked  upon  him  as  an  im- 
postor. But  was  there  nothing  in  the  Bible  author- 
izing him  to  pray?  Do  you  not  suppose  that  Saul  was 
familiar  with,  "Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found, 
and  call  ye  vpoii  him  while  he  is  near?" — Isa.  Iv :  6. 
And  with  this:  "They  who  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved." — Joel  ii :  32.  And  did  he  not 
find  in  these  a  sufficient  warrant? 

But,  tell  me,  did  not  Jesus  make  it  his  disposition 
to  pray?  But  would  he  give  a  disposition  running 
counter  to  his  own  authority?  His  prayer  was  the  im- 
mediate efi"ect  of  the  discovery  he  had  just  made,  and 
was  consonant  with  it. 

3.  "  Saul  prayed  precisely  as  any  other  Jew  in  deep 
sorrow  would  have   prayed,  and  for  no  other  reason." 


72  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

Now,  if  Mr.  Lard  had  said,  "  Saul  prayed  precisely  as 
any  other  penitent  Jew  (and  he  might  have  added,  Gen- 
tile too)  would  have  prayed,  and  for  a  similar  reason," 
he  would  have  been  about  right.  There  has  been  many 
a  "  Jew  in  deep  sorrow  "  that  never  offered  such  a 
prayer  as  Saul  did,  nor  for  the  ''same  reason."  Saul 
prayed  because  he  found  himself  a  persecutor  of  the 
true  Messiah,  and  ''  kicking  against  the  goads."  Have 
all  other  Jews  in  deep  sorrow  prayed  for  this  reason  ? 

4.  "  That  this  prayer  was  acceptable  to  the  Lord  is 
not  known."  Indeed?  Do  we  not  know  that  a  prayer 
is  acceptable  to  the  Lord  when  we  know  that  the  Lord 
answers  it?  The  Lord  answers  no  unacceptable  prayer. 
The  Lord  answered  Saul's  prayer,  therefore  it  was  ac- 
ceptable. 

But  we  also  know  that  Saul's  prayer  was  acceptable 
to  the  Savior,  because  he  spoke  approvlnglij  of  it.  Jesus 
said  to  Ananias,  ''Arise  and  go  into  the  street  which 
is  called  Straight,  and  inquire  in  the  house  of  Judas 
for  one  called  Saul  of  Tarsus  :  fur  behold  he  prayeth." 
0  !  was  it  not  pleasing  to  the  benevolent  Jesus  that 
the  whole  tide  of  this  man's  moral  feelings  was  turned 
into  a  new  channel  !  That  now  this  persecutor  and 
blasphemer,  instead  of  breathing  out  threatenings  and 
slaughter,  was  breathing  out  the  spirit  of  penitence  and 
prayer  !  I  have  no  doubt  that  there  was  holy  triumph 
in  his  eye  as  the  Savior  said  to  Ananias,  "  Behold  he 
prayeth."  Pity  that  Mr.  Lard,  to  save  a  favorite  dog- 
ma,— and  such  a  dogma ! — is  compelled  to  say,  "  It  is 
not  known  "  that  the  Lord  accepted  this  prayer  ! !  ! 

5.  \Vc  shall  notice  what  Mr.  Lard  says  is  the  "  most 
that  can  be  said  of  the  case  of  Saul,"  under  another 
head.  We  pnss  to  consider  the  fourth  example  of  an 
unbaptized   person's  praying,  and   praying   acceptably, 


Jeter's  campbellisii  exposed.  73 

during  the  reign  of  Christ.  It  is  found  in  Acts  x:  1,  2: 
"There  was  a  man  in  Cesarea  called  Cornelius,  a  centu- 
rion of  the  band  called  the  Italian  band,  a  devout  man, 
and  one  that  feared  God  with  all  his  house,  which  gave 
much  alms  to  the  people,  and  prayed  to  God  ahvays." 

This  is  a  case  which  3Ir.  Lard  has  not  touched.  What 
he  would  say  to  it  I  can  not  tell.  AVhnt  can  he  say  to 
it?  He  can  not  say  as  he  has  said  of  Saul,  that  Cor- 
nelius prayed  as  a  Jew.  Cornelius  was  a  Gentile.  Cor- 
nelius was  not  at  this  time  baptized.  Well,  was  his 
prayer  heard?  Let  us  hear  the  testimony  of  the  angel: 
"  The  angel  said  to  him,  Thy  prayers  and  thine  alms 
are  come  up  for  a  memorial  before  God." — V.  4.  "Thy 
prayer  is  heard,  and  thine  alms  are  had  in  remembrance 
in  the  sight  of  God." — V.  31. 

There  is  another  thought,  which,  if  it  were  possible, 
strengthens  this  example,  namely :  Peter,  when  Corne- 
lius narrated  before  him  the  vision  he  had  had,  and  the 
assurance  of  the  angel  that  his  prayers  were  heard,  etc., 
responded  :  '■  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  re- 
specter of  persons;  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth 
him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him." 
—V.  3-i. 

Now  does  not  this  language  of  Peter  show  that  Cor- 
nelius was  accepted  just  as  a  Jew  or  any  other  person 
would  be  accepted?  How  else  did  it  cause  Peter  to  per- 
ceive that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons?  If  no  person 
ought  to  pray  before  baptism,  Peter  ought  to  have  known 
it,  and,  therefore,  his  wonder  ought  to  have  been  that 
Cornelius,  an  unbaptized  man,  was  heard  at  all !  No  : 
his  wonder  was  that  a  Gentile  was  heard  and  accepted, 
just  as  Jews  were  heard  and  accepted.  He  had  thought 
that  God  was  a  respecter  of  the  Jews,  but  now  he  per- 
ceived better.  Peter's  words  certainly  show  that  just 
4 


74  AN    EXAMINATION    OP   LARDS   REVIEW    OF 

as  God  accepted  Cornelius  before  baptism  as  a  man  who 
'^  feared  God  and  worked  righteousness,"  so  would  he 
accept  of  any  one  else  of  whatever  nation  or  people  he 
might  be.  Peter's  words,  then,  as  well  as  the  example, 
are  a  complete  refutation  of  Mr.  Lard's  position. 

V.    My  fifth  and  final  argument  is : 

Mr.  Lard  has  not  produced  a  single  text  to  prove  that, 
during  the  reign  of  Christ,  it  is  not  the  duty  of  an  unbap- 
tized  person  to  pray. 

I  take  it  that  as  Mr.  Lard  has  not  produced  one  text 
to  sustain  his  position,  no  such  text  can  be  found.  If 
there  was  such  a  text  he  is  the  man  to  find  it,  and  bring 
it  forward.  But  he  has  not  done  it.  The  only  thing 
like  proof  in  his  entire  article  on  this  subject  is  his  final 
remark  on  the  case  of  Saul.     I  will  now  bring  it  forward: 

"  The  most  that  can  be  said  of  the  case  of  Saul — and 
this  much  certainly  can  be  said — is,  that,  when  Ananias 
commanded  him  to  be  baptized  and  wash  away  his  sins, 
he  commanded  him  to  do  so  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  And  so  we  say,  command  the  sinner,  not  to  pray 
for  the  remission  of  his  sins — for  the  Lord  has  not 
enjoined  it  on  him — but  to  be  baptized  and  wash  them 
away,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.  This  form  of 
prayer  and  under  these  circumstances,  we  approve  from 
our  heart." 

Mr.  Lard,  from  the  above,  certainly  understands  Ana- 
nias as  teaching  Saul  that  it  was  not  his  duty  to  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  only  as  a  baptized  man.  Now, 
if  Mr.  Lard  is  right,  Saul  so  understood  Ananias.  But 
did  Saul  so  understand  him?  Let  the  readqr  remember 
that  this  Saul  afterward  became  Paul  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  author  of  a  large  portion  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    And  he  has  written   on   the   subject  of  prayer. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  75 

But  never,  never,  has  lie  hinted  that  no  unbaptized  per- 
son should  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  llemember 
the  lesson  we  have  already  considered  as  given  by  him 
to  Timothy.  And  now  let  us  go  to  Rom.  x:  9,  13. 
Here  the  apostle  is  teaching  expressly  the  way  of  sal- 
vation, and  what  the  word  of  faith  which  he  preached 
affirmed.  It  is  this  :  "  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy 
mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart 
that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be 
saved."  "Is  it  possible  that  this  is  what  Paul  says?" 
Yes,  this  is  what  he  says.  "  Does  he  not  say  a  word 
about  baptism?"  No,  not  a  word.  "Well,  does  he  oflfer 
no  proofs?"  Yes,  he  offers  two  proofs.  One  from  Isa. 
xxviii :  16:  "He  that  believeth  on  him  shall  not  be 
ashamed."  The  other  from  Joel  ii :  32 :  "  He  that 
calleth  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  And 
he  contends  that  this  passage  proves  that  "  the  same 
Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  him."  Did 
he  not  add,  "provided  they  have  been  baptized?"  No. 
Such  a  thought  never  entered  his  mind.  "  Then  he  or 
Mr.  Lard,  one,  has  misunderstood  Ananias."  Well,  I 
suspect  it  is  Mr.  Lard?  "But  do  n't  the  apostle  ask, 
How  can  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  be- 
lieved? '  Yes;  but  he  does  not  ask,  "How  can  they 
call  on  him  unless  they  have  been  baptized.^'  "  0,  if 
he  had  only  asked  that  question,  how  glad  Mr.  Lard 
would  be  ! "  Yes,  but  he  has  not  done  it,  and  Mr.  Lard 
will  have  to  go  ungratified. 

Reader,  I  have  now  gone  through  with  my  argument. 
Let  me  recapitulate.  I  have  first  shown  that  prayer 
is  a  moral  duty,  and  therefore  binding  on  all  rational 
human  beings,  and  that,  consequently,  it  has  not  been, 
and  can  not  be  affected  by  baptism. 

I  have  shown  that  prayer  must  be  binding  upon  all 


76  AN  EXAMINATION  OF  LARD's  REVIEW  OP 

rational  human  beings,  because  the  Bible  condemns 
those  that  neglect  it  as  worthy  of  the  wrath  of  God. 

I  have  shown  that  in  no  lesson  taught  us  in  the  New 
Testament  on  the  subject  of  prayer,  is  there  the  remotest 
hint  that  the  duty  was  limited  by  baptism. 

I  have  shown  that  we  have  at  least  four  examples  of 
unbaptized  individuals  praying,  and  praying  acceptably, 
during  the  reign  of  Christ.  One  of  whom  prayed  ex- 
pressly for  the  remission  of  his  sins,  and  received  a 
gracious  answer. 

Finally,  I  have  shown  that  Mr.  Lard  has  shown  noth- 
ing like  proof  for  his  strange  dogma  on  this  subject. 

Then  in  whose  favor  should  the  scale  turn?  Reader, 
I  dread  not  your  verdict. 

I  will  close  this  chapter  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Lard, 
only  substituting  his  name  for  Mr.  Jeter's  : 

"And  are  these  cases — I  would  rather  say  this  case, 
for  Saul's  is  the  only  case  Mr.  Lard  has  urged — all  that 
Mr.  Lard  could  urge  in  defense  of  his  doctrine?  And 
does  he  ask  us  to  accept  it  as  true  on  no  better  grounds? 
We  shall  only  add,  we  wonder  that  even  he  did  not  be- 
come ashamed  of  his  feeble  defense,  and  abandon  the 
cause  he  was  so  ineffectually  seeking  to  establish." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  77 


CHAPTER  III. 

the  influence  of  the  holy  spirit  in  conversion. 

§  1. 

1.  1.  In  writing  on  this  subject,  I  wish  to  follow  Mr. 
Lard's  arrangement  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
I  want  the  number  of  the  sections  to  correspond,  so 
that  reference  can  be  easily  made  from  one  book  to  the 
other. 

2.  Mr.  Lard  devotes  thirty-five  pages  of  his  book  to 
the  examination  of  "  Mr.  Jeter's  doctrine  of  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  in  conversion."  But  as  I  have  de- 
termined not  to  notice  his  book  as  a  Keview  of  Jeter, 
I  shall  pass  it  all  by  except  so  much  as  tends  to  throw 
light  on  Mr.  Lard's  own  doctrine. 

3.  On  page  seventy-six,  Mr.  Lard  begins  the  state- 
ment and  defense  of  his  "own  doctrine"  on  this  sub- 
ject. He  states  the  "proposition  to  be  maintained" 
thus : 

"  The  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  through  the 
truth  only." 

Mr.  Lard  then  goes  on  to  submit  "  a  number  of  pre- 
liminaries before  entering  upon  the  defense  proper  of 
this  proposition."  The  first  is  the  Campbellite  view  of 
the  "  Spirit  itself."     He  says  : 

"  We  wish  to  state  distinctly  that  we  conceive  it  to 
be  a  person  in  the  sublimest  sense  of  the  word.  We 
do  not  conceive  it  to  be  a  mere  influence  or  impersonal 
emanation  from  the  Father,  or  the  Son,  or  from  both; 


78  AN   EXAMINATION   OP    LAED's   REVIEW   OF 

but  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term  a  person.  As  to 
its  nature,  it  is  spirit;  personally  it  is  the  Spirit;  of- 
ficially the  Holy  Spirit.  Personally  considered,  these 
expressions  may  be  said  to  exhaust  the  sum  of  human 
knowledge  respecting  the  Spirit.  Assuming  these  views 
to  be  correct,  no  effort  is  here  made  to  defend  them." 

I  must  confess  that  the  above  leaves  me  in  doubt.  I 
have  heretofore  believed  and  contended  that  Mr.  Camp- 
bell and  all  his  followers,  except  such  as  still  entertain 
the  peculiar  notions  of  Mr.  B.  W.  Stone,  agreed  with  the 
evangelical  denominations  in  the  divinity  and  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Spirit,  if  not  in  his  agency  in  conver- 
sion. But  I  am  unable  to  see  anything  in  all  that  Mr. 
Lard  has  here  said,  that  necessarily  implies  his  divinity. 
True  his  divinity  is  not  denied.  It  is  passed  over  in 
silence.  But  is  not  this  silence  significant?  especially 
as  Mr.  Lard  has  said  his  "expressions  exhaust  the  sum 
of  human  knowledge  respecting  the  Spirit?" 

But  there  is  another  circumstance  which  makes  me 
doubt,  namely :  Mr.  Lard  throughout  his  book,  uni- 
formly uses  the  pronoun  of  the  neuter  gender  (i7)  to 
represent  the  Spirit  when  he  does  not  employ  his  name. 
Now  why  is  this?  Does  he  ever  use  the  pronoun  "it" 
to  represent  God?  Never.  And  I  should  like  to  know 
how  the  pronoun  "it"  can  represent  a  person  except 
in  the  most  diminutive  manner. 

But  perhaps  some  reader  may  feel  to  apologize  for 
Mr.  Lard  by  saying :  "  The  noun,  spirit,  can  neither 
be  masculine  nor  feminine,  hence  '■it'  is  the  proper  pro- 
noun by  which  to  represent  spirit."  To  this  I  reply: 
Why  did  not  the  Spirit  of  Inspiration  think  so?  An- 
gels are  spirits,  (Heb.  i:  7-14;)  yet  the  pronoun  "  iV  " 
is  never  used  to  represent  them.  God  is  a  spirit,  (John 
iv :   2-1:;)    but    is   "it"   used    to    represent    him?     How 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  79 

strangely  would  it  sound  to  read,  "  God  is  a  spirit,  and 
they  that  worship  it  must  worship  it  in  spirit  and  in 
truth?''  It  sounds  to  me  not  only  strange,  but  pro- 
fane to  read  it,  it,  on  every  page  of  Mr.  Lard's  book 
when  the  Ploly  Spirit  is  intended. 

I  do  think  that  Mr.  Lard,  in  using  "  iV "  to  repre- 
sent the  Holy  Spirit,  has  greatly  dishonored  him.  He 
has  certainly  departed  from  the  usage  of  the  Bible,  and 
has  given  just  ground  for  being  suspected  of  a  disbe- 
lief of  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  Bible,  when  speaking  of  the  Spirit,  employs  the 
pronoun  of  the  masculine  gender.  I  will  quote  a  few 
passages :  "  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come  whom  I 
will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall  testify 
of  me." — John  xv:  26.  Again  :  "I  will  pray  the  Father, 
and  he  will  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may 
abide  with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  whom 
the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not:  but 
ye  know  him ;  for  he  dwelleth  with  you  and  shall  be 
in  you."-*-John  xiv  :  16,  17.  Again  :  "  But  the  Com- 
forter, which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will 
send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things." — John 
xiv:  26.  Once  more:  "  But  if  I  depart  I  will  send  hnn 
unto  you.  And  when  he  is  come  he  will  reprove  the 
world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment.  *  ^ 
^  *  Howbelt,  when  /ie,  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he 
will  guide  you  into  all  truth  :  for  he  shall  not  speak  of 
himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  that  shall  he  speak, 
and  he  will  show  you  things  to  come.  Jle  shall  glorify 
me :  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine  and  shall  show  it  unto 
you." — John  xvi:  7,  8,  13,  14.  Finally:  "  But  all  these 
worketh,  that  one  and  the  self-same  Spirit  dividing  to 
every  man  severally  as  he  will." — 1  Cor.  xii :  11. 


80  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARd's   REVIEW   OP 

It  may  do  for  a  "  Graduate  of  Bethany  College  "  to 
use  the  pronoun  "it"  for  the  Holy  Spirit:  but  a  grad- 
uate in  the  school  of  Christ  will  not  treat  him  with  such 
indignity. 

Nothing  is  more  plainly  revealed  in  the  Bible  than 
the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  My  limits  will  allow 
only  a  brief  statement  of  its  teachings  on  this  subject. 
I  shall  content  myself  with  the  quotation  of  a  few  tests 
followed  by  a  few  brief  remarks. 

1.  Paul,  in  Acts  xxviii :  25,  26,  27,  says:  "Well 
spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  the 
fathers,  saying,  Go  unto  this  people,"  etc.  Now  turn  to 
Isaiah  vi :  8,  and  you  will  see  that  these  are  there  said 
to  be  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jehovah.  Now,  as  Paul 
calls  these  the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  must  have 
regarded  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Jehovah  as  only  two 
names  for  the  same  Divine  person:  or,  otherwise,  he 
contradicts  Isoiah.  But  this  no  believer  in  the  Bible 
will  admit.  Then  the  Jehovah  of  Isaiah,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  of  Paul,  are  one  and  the  same  Being. 

2.  In  Acts  V :  3,  4,  we  are  told  that  Peter  said  to 
Ananias:  "Why  hath  Satan  filled  thy  heart  to  lie  to 
the  Holy  Ghost?  Thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men  but 
unto  God."  Now,  does  not  Peter  here  emphatically 
assert  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God? 

3.  2  Cor.  vi :  16:  "For  ye  are  the  temple  of  the  liv- 
ing God;  as  God  has  said,  I  will  dwell  in  thom,  and 
walk  in  them."  Now  compare  1  Cor.  vi :  19:  "What! 
know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  the  temple  of  the 
Holy  Ghost?"  and  Eph.  ii :  22:  "In  whom  ye  also  are 
builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  God  through  the 
Spirit."  Now  these  three  texts,  when  collated,  show 
that  the  living  God  of  the  first,  is  the  Holy  Ghost  of 
the  second.     And  the  word  temple,  in  the  first  two,  cor- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  81 

responds  with   the  word   habitation   in    the   third.     All 
together,  therefore,  show  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God. 

4.  2  Cor.  iii :  17 :  "  Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit." 
"That  Spirit — what?  Why  that  Spirit  by  which  ye 
'our  epistles'  are  'written,'  verse  3.  Then  that  Spirit 
which  writes  God's  law  on  the  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart, 
is  '  the  Lord.'  " 

5.  And  finally,  in  Acts  iv  :  24,  25,  we  read:  "They 
lifted  up  their  voice  to  God  with  one  accord,  and  said, 
Lord,  thou  art  God,  who  hast  made  heaven,  and  earth, 
and  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is.  Who  by  the 
mouth  of  thy  servant  David  hath  said,"  etc.  Now  com- 
pare Acts  i:  16:  "The  Scripture  must  needs  have  been 
fulfilled  which  the  Holy  Ghost  spake  by  the  mouth  of 
David."  Now,  is  it  not  plain  that  the  Holy  Ghost  of 
the  one  passage,  is  the  Lord  God  of  the  other,  who 
spake  by  the  mouth  of  David? 

Now,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Divine,  all  the  attributes 
of  the  Deity  are  ascribed  to  him. 

1.  Eternity.  "Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit 
offered  himself  without  spot  to  God." — Heb.  ix  :  14. 

2.  Omnipresence.  "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy 
Spirit?  or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence?" — 
Psalm  cxxxvii :  7. 

3.  Omniscience.  "The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea 
the  deep  things  of  God.  Even  so,  the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man  but  the  Spirit  of  God." — 1  Cor.  ii : 
10,  11. 

4.  Passing  by  all  that  Mr.  Lard  says  about  the  "  prop- 
osition to  be  discussed,"  not  being  a  "question  of 
power,"  or  what  the  Spirit  "can  do,"  but  simply  a 
question  of  what  he  does  in  conversion  ;  and  all  he 
says  about  "  providential  influences,"  etc.,  etc.,  for  the 

present,  I  wish  to  notice  his  unfairness  in  trying  to  make 
4* 


82  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

it  appear  that  Mr.  Jeter  has  conceded  to  him  the  "very 
ground  "  he  claims.     Mr,  Lard  says  : 

"  Indeed  he  concedes  to  us  the  very  ground  we  claim, 
and  the  only  ground  which,  in  this  controversy,  it  is 
possible  to  settle,  namely :  that  the  Spirit  does  operate 
through  the  truth.  His  language  is:  'It  is  freely  ad- 
mitted that  the  Spirit  operates  through  the  word  in  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  men.'  What  then  have 
we  to  do?  Simply  nothing.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
close  a  controversy  more  completely  in  favor  of  one  of 
the  parties  than  the  present  controversy  is  here  closed 
in  our  favor." 

Then  are  we  not  ready  to  ask  why  did  not  Mr.  Lard 
here  lay  down  his  pen?  Ah!  reader,  Mr.  Lard  did  not 
mean  so,  nor  did  his  heart  think  so.  He  knew  Mr.  Jeter 
had  not  conceded  the  ground  he  claims.  He  knew  that 
while  he  chooses  to  employ  Mr.  Jeter's  language,  he 
attaches  to  it  a  very  diiferent  meaning  to  what  Mr. 
Jeter  does.  I  will  now  make  this  palpable.  Mr.  Lard 
says:  "But  what  do  we  mean  when  we  say  the  Spirit 
operates  through  the  truth?  We  mean  that  it  operates 
hy  the  truth;  that  is,  that  Divine  truth  is  itself  the 
vital  power  by  which  in  all  cases  the  Spirit  effects  con- 
version ;  in  other  words,  that  the  Spirit  spends  on  the 
mind  of  the  sinner  in  conversion  no  influence  except 
such  as  resides  in  the  truth  as  Divine  as  of  the  Spirit. 
And  we  shall  further  add,  that  neither  in  quantity  nor 
in  force  do  we  conceive  that  this  influence  can  be  in- 
creased and  the  human  will  be  left  free." 

Now,  reader,  do  you  understand  Mr.  Lard?  He  cer- 
tainly means  that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  through  the 
truth,  in  no  other  sense  than  that  he  is  the  author  of 
the  truth  that  operates.  Now  Mr.  Jeter  means  no  such 
thing.     He   means  just  -what  he  says — that   the   Holy 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  8S 

Spirit  does  oj)cra(e.  Not  simply  that  he  is  the  author 
of  the  truth  that  converts  because  it  is  of  him  ;  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  himself  converts  by  means  of  the  truth. 

That  I  have  not  mistaken  or  misunderstood  Mr.  Lard, 
I  will  now  show. 

On  page  7-i,  Mr.  Lard  says:  "According  to  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's theory,  conversion  is  in  every  case  effected  by  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit;  but  then  comes  the  question, 
what  influence  is  meant?  He  denies  that  it  is  an  influ- 
ence distinct  from  and  above  the  truth,  and  maintains 
that  the  truth  itself  is  that  influence."  Now,  what  is 
the  meaning  of  this?  Does  it  not  show  that  while  Mr. 
Campbell  and  Mr.  Lard  talk  like  other  men  about  con- 
version being  efi"ected  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
they  have  a  meaning  of  their  own  ?  When  Mr.  Camp- 
bell says:  Conversion  is  effected  by  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  he  means  it  is  effected  by  the  truth,  which  is 
itself  that  influence.  And  when  Mr.  Lard  says:  The 
Holy  Spirit  operates  through  the  truth  in  conversion, 
he  means  the  truth  itself  operates  !  Their  propositions 
assist  his  agency,  their  arguments  deny  it! 

It  does  appear  to  me  silly  to  talk  about  the  Holy 
Spirit's  operating  through  the  truth,  when  it  is  denied 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  "spends  on  the  mind  of  the  sinner 
in  conversion  any  influence  except  such  as  resides  in 
the  truth  ;"  or  to  talk  about  ascribing  conversion  in  every 
case  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  when  it  is  contended 
that  the  truth  itself  is  that  influence.  If  the  truth  it- 
self is  that  influence,  how  can  the  Holy  Spirit  operate 
through  it?  The  Holy  Spirit  operate  through  his  own 
influence !  What  is  his  influence  but  his  operation  ? 
Does  he  operate  through  his  operation  ?  influence 
through  his  influence  ? 

I  think  I  might  justly  say  Mr.  Lard  concedes  in  his 


84  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

proposition  the  vei'y  ground  we  claim,  if  he  would  drop 
the  word  "  only "  from  the  end  of  it.  Let  it  read : 
"  The  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  through  the 
truth,"  and  we  will  subscribe  to  it;  for  if  words  have 
any  meaning,  or  if  they  are  to  be  understood  according 
to  their  plain  grammatical  and  logical  import,  this  prop- 
osition asserts  the  present  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  every 
case  of  conversion.  It  is  a  singular  fact,  as  our  future 
investigation  will  show,  that  while  Mr.  Lard's  leading 
proposition  asserts  that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit 
operates,  every  argument  he  employs  denies  it. 

II.  Let  us  now  examine  Mr.  Lard's  first  argument. 
It  is  this  :  "  That  the  necessity  does  not  exist  for  any 
influence  in  conversion,  except  such  as  is  exerted  through 
Divine  truth,  and  that  hence  no  other  is  exerted." 

1.  This  argument  is  ambiguously  worded.  When  it 
is  asserted  that  "  the  necessity  does  not  exist  for  any  in- 
fluence in  conversion,  except  such  as  is  exerted  through 
the  truth,"  we  are  left  to  ask — exerted  by  whom  ?  And 
the  answer  might  be  :  "  By  the  Holy  Spirit."  But  this 
answer  is  precluded  by  what  we  have  already  considered. 
We  have  already  seen  that  when  Campbellites  say,  "con- 
version is  in  every  case  effected  by  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit,"  they  mean  "  the  truth  itself  is  that  influence." 
Mr.  Lard's  meaning  is  this  :  The  necessity  does  not  exist 
for  any  influence  in  conversion,  except  such  as  the  truth 
itself  exerts.  That  this  is  his  meaning,  his  amplifica- 
tion fully  shows.     He  says: 

"  In  the  present  controversy  this  argument  must  be 
conceived  as  having  great  weight.  Nothing  is  done  in 
effecting  redemption,  for  which  there  does  not  exist  a 
necessity.  And  in  all  cases  in  which,  like  the  present, 
a  peculiar  interposition  is  denied,  the   necessity  for  it 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  85 

must  be  first  clearly  shown,  otherwise  such  denial  stands 
good  against  it."  Again  :  "  Where  a  necessity  exists 
for  doing  a  thing,  there  exists  a  reason  for  doing  it;  but 
where  no  such  necessity  exists,  the  presumption  is  that 
if  the  thing  is  done  at  all,  it  is  done  without  a  reason, 
which,  in  the  case  of  conversion,  is  not  admissible.  We 
hence  conclude  that  in  conversion  no  influence  is  exerted 
distinct  from  and  above  the  truth." 

Mr.  Lard  then  goes  on  to  say :  "  What  is  here  said 
suggests  the  tru'C  theory  of  the  argument  usually  urged 
from  depravity  in  defense  of  an  influence  above  or  not 
in  the  truth."  Reader,  mark  that.  Does  it  not  show 
that  the  influence  for  which  Mr.  Lard  is  contending  is, 
in  his  estimation,  now  in  the  truth?  Then  it  is  not  now 
in  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  truth 
are  not  identical.  Mr.  Lard  continues :  "  It  is  first 
assumed  that  man  is  totally,  or,  as  Mr.  Jeter  has  it, 
utterly  depraved.  It  is  then  urged  that  this  utter  de- 
pravity, or  rather  the  resistance  which  is  met  with  from 
it  in  conversion,  can  not  be  overcome  by  any  force  of 
Divine  truth,  however  great,  and  that  there  is,  hence,  a 
necessity  for  another  and  greater  influence.  But,  in- 
stead of  assuming  this,  which  is  the  main  point  in  their 
argument,  let  the  advocates  of  this  peculiar  influence 
come  forward  and  show  us,  either  by  indisputable  and 
pertinent  facts,  or  by  passages  of  Holy  Writ,  clear  and 
relevant,  that  man  is  thus  depraved ;  then,  and  not  until 
then,  will  their  argument  be  of  any  force  or  entitled  to 
any  respect." 

I  have  quoted  enough  of  what  Mr.  Lard  has  here  said, 
to  give  the  reader  the  full  benefit  of  his  argument.  Let 
me  now  ask,  does  it  sustain  his  proposition  ?  Does  it 
prove  that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit  operates? 
Rather  does  it  not  deny  that  he  operates?     Does  it  not 


86  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW   OF 

deny  that  there  is  any  necessity  for  his  operation  ?  Does 
it  not  contend  that  all  the  influence  necessary  to  conver- 
sion, is  71010  in  the  truth? 

The  reader  can  also  see  how  the  adoption  and  advo- 
cacy of  one  error,  leads  to  the  adoption  and  advocacy  of 
another.  The  adoption  of  the  notion  that  the  truth 
itself  is  all  the  influence  necessary  in  conversion,  has  led 
Mr.  Lard  and  his  brethren  to  deny  the  doctrine  of  de- 
pravity, and  contend  for  the  mere  peccability  of  human 
nature. 

But  one  thing  I  wish  to  have  especially  noted,  name- 
ly :  If  we  prove  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  we  prove 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion.  This,  I 
feel  confident,  can  be  done,  and  this  I  shall  attempt  to 
do  at  the  proper  time.  For  the  present  I  leave  the 
reader  to  ponder  over  what  I  have  written. 

§2. 

Mr.  Lard's  second  argument  is : 

'■^That  any  influence  more  intense  than  that  of  Divine 
truth,  and  above  it,  snch  as  Mr.  Jeter  contends  for,  would, 
of  necessity,  infringe  the  freedom  of  the  human  will,  and 
hence,  can  not  he  admitted  to  he  present  in  conversion.'^ 

Now,  reader,  is  that  not  a  strange  argument  to  prove 
that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit  operates?  Does  it 
not  deny  that  any  influence  is  present  in  conversion  ex- 
cept that  of  Divine  truth  ?  If  the  Holy  Spirit  operates 
in  conversion  through  the  truth,  then  there  are  present 
in  conversion  both  the  truth  and  this  operation  of  the 
Spirit  through  it.  And  is  not  this  operation  necessarily 
more  intense  than  the  truth  itself?  Must  not  the  opera- 
tion of  the  agent  be  more  intense  than  the  simple  instru- 
ment through  which  he  operates?  Evidently  it  is  Mr. 
Lard's  intention  to  deny  that  there  is  present  in  con 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  87 

version  any  influence  except  that  of  the  truth.  This 
will  appear  in  his  amplification  of  his  argument.  But 
be  it  remembered,  that  in  denying  it  he  denies  his  own 
"  proposition." 

Mr.  Lard  begins  his  amplification  by  saying:  "In 
order  to  be  responsible,  man  must  be  left  free."  Again: 
"All  we  can  do  for  him,  or  with  him,  as  a  moral  agent, 
is  to  present  the  truth,  proved  to  be  such,  distinctly  to 
his  mind,  and  then  leave  him  free  as  the  unfettered 
wind  to  accept  it  or  reject  it.  The  instant  we  restrain 
him  by  external  force,  or  constrain  him  by  internal  in- 
fluence, that  instant  he  ceases  to  be  a  free  man,  and  his 
act  is  not  his  own." 

Reader,  let  me  urge  upon  you  a  careful  perusal  of  the 
above  quotation,  and  then  let  me  ask  you  the  following 
question  :  Does  not  Mr.  Lard  here  exclude  the  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit?  The  Holy  Spirit  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  presentation  of  the  truth  to  the  mind  of  the 
sinner.  This  is  done  by  the  preacher.  Then,  if  this 
is  "all  we  can  do"  for  the  sinner  "as  a  moral  agent," 
the  Holy  Spirit  does  nothing  for  him.  If  after  the  pres- 
entation of  the  truth  the  sinner  is  to  be  left  free  as  the 
unfettered  wind,  to  accept  it  or  reject  it,  if  no  influence, 
external  or  internal,  is  to  be  brought  to  bear  upon  him, 
then  the  Holy  Spirit  does  nothing  in  the  case. 

Let  us  hear  Mr.  Lard  further : 

"Now,  there  is  but  one  case  we  need  consider:  that 
of  a  man  unwilling  to  receive  the  truth.  For  if  a  man 
is  perfectly  willing  to  receive  the  truth,  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive  the  advantage  to  him  of  an  influence  de- 
signed to  have  only  the  effect  to  make  him  willing. 
But  he  is,  suppose,  no  matter  from  what  cause,  unwill- 
ing, or  disinclined  to  receive  the  truth.  But  the  Spirit 
interposes  with  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  the 


88  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

truth,  and  inclines  him  to  do  the  thing  which  he  himself 
is  inclined  not  to  do.  Is  this  the  act  of  a  man  acting  of 
his  own  will,  or  is  it  not  rather  the  act  of  a  man  acting 
against  his  will?  Certainly,  Mr.  Jeter  will  doubtless 
tell  us,  it  is  the  act  of  a  man  acting  of  his  own  will,  for 
the  Spirit  gives  the  man  the  will.  The  case,  then,  is 
simply  this :  the  man  is  not  compelled  to  act  against  his 
will,  but  compelled  to  accept  a  will  which  is  not  his 
own.  We  shall  leave  the  reader  to  decide  how  much 
this  improves  the  case." 

This  paragraph  of  Mr.  Lard's  teems  with  error. 

1.  He  supposes  that  some  men  are  naturally  willing 
to  receive  the  truth,  and,  therefore,  do  not  need  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  make  them  willing.  No 
such  cases  exist.  Two  texts  are  sufficient  to  settle  this 
question  forever:  "No  man  can  come  unto  me,  except 
the  Father  who  hath  sent  me  drmv  him." — John,  vi :  44. 
"  For  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  loill  and  to 
do  of  his  good  pleasure." — Phil,  ii :  13. 

2.  He  supposes  that  if  the  Spirit  "inclines"  the  sin- 
ner to  do  that  which  he  is  "  inclined  not  to  do,"  the 
doing  of  that  thing  is  "  not  of  his  own  will,  but  against 
his  own  will."  Now,  does  not  Mr.  Lard  know  that  in- 
stances innumerable  can  be  presented  where  persons 
have  been  '■^  incline cV  through  the  influence  of  avother 
to  do  what  they  themselves  were  unwilling  to  do?  I 
will  instance  a  case  or  two  :  (Luke  xi :  5-8  :)  "  What 
man  of  you  if  he  have  a  friend  and  shall  go  unto  him 
at  midnight,  and  say  unto  him,  Friend,  lend  me  three 
loaves;  for  a  friend  of  mine  in  his  journey  is  come  to 
me,  and  I  have  nothing  to  set  before  him.  And  he 
from  within  shall  answer  and  say,  Trouble  me  not;  the 
door  is  now  shut,  and  my  children  are  with  me  in  bed; 
I  can  not  rise  and  (jive  thee.'"     Now,  here  note  ;  this  man 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  89 

had  the  truth  plainly  presented  before  him ;  but  he  was 
wholly  disinclined  to  do  it.  Now,  what  is  to  be  done 
with  him  ?  According  to  Mr.  Lard's  philosophy,  we 
must  just  let  him  alone  :  for  the  instant  we  go  a  step 
further  and  exert  any  additional  influence  upon  him,  he 
is  degraded  to  the  level  of  a  mere  machine,  he  ceases  to 
be  a  free  man,  and  the  act  he  may  perform  under  such 
additional  influence,  will  not  be  his  own.  But  the  man 
who  needed  the  loaves  cared  nothing  about  such  phi- 
losophy. He  importuned  until  he  aflfected  and  changed 
the  ivill  of  the  man  in  the  bed.  And  he  arose  and 
gave  him  as  many  as  he  needed. 

Another  example  is  in  Luke  xviii:  2,  3.  "There  was 
in  a  city  a  judge  who  feared  not  God  nor  regarded  man  ; 
and  there  was  also  in  that  city  a  poor  widow ;  and  she 
came  to  this  judge,  saying,  Avenge  me  of  my  adversary." 
Here  she  presented  the  truth,  but  this  judge  was  not 
inclined  to  do  it.  Now,  what  was  she  to  do?  Why, 
according  to  Mr.  Lard's  philosophy,  she  ought  to  have 
left  him  free  as  the  unfettered  wind  to  act  as  he  pleased 
in  the  premises.  What  did  she  do  ?  Why,  she  impor- 
titned  until  she  changed  the  icill  of  the  judge,  and  secured 
his  compliance.  Now,  in  these  cases,  did  these  men  act 
against  their  own  will?  Certainly  not.  Their  wills  were 
changed.     They  became  willing,  and  then  they  acted. 

3.  Mr.  Lard  supposes,  when  the  will  of  a  man  is  thus 
changed,  he  is  "  compelled  to  accept  of  a  will  which  is 
not  his  own."  Now,  is  this  true?  Was  not  the  will  of 
the  men  in  the  above  examples,  which  they  had  when 
they  complied  with  the  respective  propositions  submitted 
to  them,  as  much  their  own  as  the  one  they  had  at  the 
first?  Did  the  importuning  parties  give  a  will?  Then 
these  men  had  (ico  wills !  The  one  they  had  at  first, 
and  the  one  the  importuning  parties  gave  them !     I  can 


90  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

not  think  Mr.  Lard  believes  his  own  logic.  But  per- 
haps Mr.  Lard  will  allow  one  man  to  change  the  will 
of  another,  and  yet  leave  his  agency  unimpaired,  while 
lie  will  not  allow  the  Spirit  of  God  to  do  so.  I  appeal  to 
the  reader.  Reader,  does  not  common  sense  say  that  if 
it  is  competent  for  the  spirit  of  one  man  thus  to  change 
the  will  of  another,  and  yet  not  impair  his  agency,  it  is 
competent  for  the  Spirit  of  Grod  to  do  it  ? 

Let  me  quote  another  paragraph  from  Mr.  Lard  : 

"  According  to  this  theory,  which  is  the  theory  of  Mr. 
Jeter  and  his  brethren,  conversion  is  in  no  sense — not 
even  in  part — in  the  power  of  the  sinner  himself,  but 
depends  absolutely  on  the  power  and  will  of  another. 
Now,  we  request  him  to  ac(|uaint  the  world  whether  the 
sinner,  so  circumstanced,  is  responsible  for  not  being 
converted  until  the  Spirit  exerts  on  him  that  peculiar 
influence  for  which  he  contends  ;  whether,  in  a  word, 
the  sinner  is  responsible  for  being  what  he  can  not  but 
be,  a  sinner?  We  feel  pressed  with  the  necessity  of 
light  on  this  subject,  and  trust  our  reasonable  request 
will  not  go  unheeded." 

Reader,  we  must  pay  particular  attention  to  this  para- 
graph. 

1.  Mr.  Lard  is  not  a  competent  judge  of  what  is  the 
"  theory"  of  Mr.  Jeter  or  of  his  brethren.  In  deciding 
the  question  whether  conversion  is  or  is  not  in  the  j)oiccr 
of  the  sinner,  we  must  first  understand  clearly  what  con- 
version is ;  and  secondly,  what  we  mean  by  the  word 
"power."'  Conversion  is  a  turning  from  one  thing  to 
another.  With  respect  to  the  sinner,  it  is  a  turning 
from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  God,  (Acts  xxvi :  18,)  and  has  respect  to  the  heart 
as  well  as  the  life.  Now  the  question  whether  this  con- 
version is  in  the  jwicer  of  the  sinner,  depends  upon  the 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  91 

meaning  of  the  word  poicer.  I  hold  (and  I  presume 
Mr.  Jeter  does  too)  that  the  word  "  power"  applies  to  the 
possession  of  means.  A  thing  is  within  a  man's  power, 
if  he  liave  the  means  of  doing  it.  But  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  because  a  man  has  the  means  of  doing  a  thing, 
he  will  be  sure  to  do  it.  Something  more  than  means 
is  necessary  to  the  performance  of  a  voluntary  action, 
viz.  :  the  disposition  to  act.  And  all  that  Mr.  Jeter  de- 
nies, and  all  that  I  deny  is,  that  the  sinner  possesses 
the  disposition  to  act — to  turn — to  be  converted.  Now, 
until  Mr.  Lard  is  prepared  to  say  that  disposition  is  in- 
volved in  the  word  poiver,  he  can  not  charge  that  Mr. 
Jeter  and  his  brethren  teach  that  conversion  is  in  no 
sense  in  the  power  of  the  creature.  But  I  shall  show 
presently,  that  disposition  is  not  involved  in  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  power. 

2.  We  acknowledge  that  conversion  "absolutely  de- 
pends on  the  power  and  will  of  another" — that  is,  God. 
Ay,  we  believe  that  all  things  depend  on  his  will.  Will 
Mr.  Lard  contend  that  anything  is  independent  of  the 
will  of  God  ?  Then,  I  suppose,  he  thinks  James  too  strict 
when  he  complains  of  those  who  say,  "To-day  or  to- 
morrow we  will  go  into  such  a  city  and  continue  there 
a  year,  and  buy  and  sell,  and  get  gain,"  independent  of 
the  will  of  God  !  James  would  have  them  say,  "  ?/  the 
Lord  will."  Is  Mr.  Lard  willing  to  have  the  sinner  say, 
"My  conversion  is  in  my  own  power,  and  independent  of 
the  will  of  God  ?  "  Let  him  do  it  if  he  chooses,  but  I 
prefer  to  have  him  ascribe  it  to  the  grace  of  God. 

3.  Mr.  Lard  "requests  that  we  acquaint  the  world 
whether  the  sinner  so  circumstanced  is  responsible  for 
not  being  converted,"  etc.  Now,  what  is  the  gist  of  Mr. 
Lard's  request  here,  if  it  is  not  this — the  sinner's  con- 
version must  be  independent  of  the  will  of  God,  or  he 


92  AN  EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's  REVIEW   OP 

is  irresponsible  for  not  being  converted  !  There  is  not 
only  falsehood,  but  infidelity  in  his  philosophy.  Must 
he  dethrone  God  to  make  man  responsible?  If  he  is 
required  to  admit  the  sovereignty  of  God,  he  will  deny 
that  man  is  a  sinner  !  Like  the  objectors  in  Paul's  day, 
he  asks,  "Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault?  Who  hath  re- 
sisted his  will?" — Rom.  ix :  19.  He  will  either  deny 
that  God  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  or 
that  man  is  a  guilty  creature. 

But  let  me  try  to  give  him  some  "light  on  the  sub- 
ject." Well,  Mr.  Lard,  I  conceive  that  only  three 
things  are  necessary  to  constitute  obligation. 

1.  Relation.  Relation  is  necessary  to  give  to  one  of 
the  parties  the  right  to  command  and  to  place  the  other 
under  obligation.  Well,  Creator  and  creature  are  cor- 
relatives. God  is  our  Creator;  we  are  his  creatures. 
He  has,  therefore,  the  right  to  command,  and  we  are 
under  obligations  to  obey. 

2.  The  command,  or  rather  the  thing  commanded, 
must  be  right  in  itself.  If  it  is  intrinsically  wrong,  it 
is  not  binding,  even  though  the  party  commanding  may 
have  the  right  to  command.  For  example:  A  father  has 
the  right  to  command  his  son;  but  if  he  commands  his 
son  to  lie  or  steal,  his  command  is  not  binding,  because 
the  thing  commanded  is  wrong  in  itself. 

3.  The  thing  commanded  must  not  exceed  the  power 
of  the  party  upon  whom  it  is  enjoined.  Now,  let  us 
consider  the  word  power.  I  define  it  as  expressive  sim- 
ply of  means.  Men  are  able  to  do  a  thing  when  they 
have  the  means  of  doing  it. 

Let  us  consider  a  few  commands  : 

1.  "-Forsake  not  the  assembling  of  yourselves  together 
as  the  manner  of  some  is."  Now,  this  command  God 
has  a  right  to  give.     It  is  right  in  itself;  but  here  is  a 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  93 

brother  who  is  paralyzed.  He  has  no  physical  strength. 
Now,  is  he  under  obligation  to  obey  this  law?  But  sup- 
pose he  has  physical  strength,  then  of  course  the  law  is 
binding  upon  him. 

2.  "Search  the  Scriptures."  Now,  God  has  a  right 
to  command  this.  It  is  right  in  itself.  But  in  order 
to  this,  one  must  have  the  Scriptures.  He  must  have 
the  necessary  amount  of  learning.  And  he  must  have 
eyesight.  In  other  words,  he  must  have  the  means  of 
doing  it.  If  a  brother  have  no  Bible,  no  learning,  no 
eyesight,  it  is  not  his  duty ;  but  having  these,  it  is. 

3.  Grod  says,  "  Go  preach  the  Gospel."  This  com- 
mand is  right  in  itself  But  a  man  must  have  the  power 
of  speech  to  do  it.  I  knew  a  minister  who  was  afflicted 
with  paralysis  of  the  tongue.  He  lost  the  power  of 
speech.  Certainly,  after  this,  it  was  not  his  duty  to 
preach.     Before,  it  was. 

But  now,  when  these  three  things  meet,  there  is  obli- 
gation. Now,  God  has  the  right  to  command  the  sin- 
ner to  be  converted.  Conversion  is  right  in  itself,  and 
the  sinner  has  the  means.  Therefore,  he  is  bound  by 
the  command.  But  note  one  thing:  there  is  wanting 
in  his  case  the  disposition,  the  will.  And  so  long  as 
that  is  wanting,  he  will  certainly  remain  unconverted. 
Now,  the  whole  question  turns  upon  this  :  Is  obligation 
independent  of  the  disposition?  I  say  it  is.  Will  Mr. 
Lard  say  it  is  not  ?  Now,  if  obligation  is  not  inde- 
pendent of  the  disposition,  there  is  no  sin.  A  man  may 
see  his  brother  have  need,  and  shut  up  his  bowels  of 
compassion  from  him.  He  may  say,  Be  ye  warmed  and 
filled,  and  yet  not  give  him  the  things  which  are  need- 
ful for  the  body,  just  because  he  is  covetous.  He  has 
no  disposition  to  give.  He  has  no  will  to  impart  to  him 
that  needeth.     Is  it,  therefore,  not  his  duty  ?     It  is  car- 


94  AN   EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

tain  that  so  long  as  avarice  is  the  law  of  his  nature,  he 
■will  violate  the  law  of  benevolence.  But  is  he  guilt- 
less? He  is,  if  disposition  is  necessary  to  obligation. 
But  he  is  not  guiltless  ;  therefore,  disposition  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  obligation.  Here  is  a  man,  who  has  married 
a  wife,  and  is  the  father  of  helpless  children.  He  is 
commanded  to  provide  for  those  of  his  own  house.  He 
has  a  good  trade,  and  is  in  good  health.  But  he  is  a 
sluggard.  He  will  not  work.  He  is  destitute  of  any 
disposition  or  will  to  labor.  Can  Mr.  Lard  say  it  is  out 
of  his  power  to  work?  Can  he  say  it  is  not  his  duty? 
If  he  could  make  lazy  men  believe  that,  because  they 
were  unwilling  to  work,  it  was  not  their  duty,  they,  I 
have  no  doubt,  would  thank  him  for  the  argument.  But 
they  can  not  believe  it.  Men  carry  about  them  the  con- 
sciousness that  an  indisposition  to  do  right  is  no  excuse 
for  them.  Now,  as  indisposition  to  do  the  will  of  God 
makes  the  Holy  Spirit  necessary,  and  as  the  Holy  Spirit 
only  changes  the  disposition,  his  agency  is  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  the  question  of  human  responsibility.  The 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  make  it  the  sinner's  duty  to  turn 
to  God,  but  he  makes  it  his  disposition. 

Now,  Mr.  Lard,  I  have  given  you  light  on  this  sub- 
ject. I  hope  you  will  walk  in  it.  Just  remember  that 
we  hold  to  the  necessity  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
because  of  the  indisposition  of  the  human  heart  to  holi- 
ness. Remember,  that  we  hold  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
changes  this  indisposition.  And  remember  that  all  this 
affects  not  human  responsibility. 

I  will  close  this  section  by  noticing  Mr.  Lard's  final 
paragraph : 

"'But  why,'  Mr.  Jeter  will  doubtless  ask,  'leave  the 
sinner  so  free,  and  place  the  Christian,  by  the  indwell- 
ing of  the  Spirit  within  him,  under  an  influence  affect- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  95 

ing  the  freedom  of  his  will?'  "\Ye  reply,  that  no  such 
thing  is  done.  The  Christian  has  the  will,  but  lacks  the 
power;  hence  the  Spirit  helps  his  injirmity,  without  aflFect- 
ing  his  will.  To  aid  the  Christian  to  do  what  he  is 
already  more  than  willing  to  do,  but  lacks  the  power  to 
do,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  constraining  the  sin- 
ner to  do  against  his  will  what  he  has  the  power  to  do. 
True,  Grod  works  in  the  Christian,  as  we  conceive,  both 
will  and  deed ;  but  then  he  works  the  will  by  motive — 
the  only  thing  that  can  determine  the  will — and  the 
deed  by  lending  aid  when  the  power  is  lacking." 

All  I  have  to  say  about  this  paragraph,  at  the  pres- 
ent, is  this : 

1.  No  one  believes  in  "constraining  the  sinner  to  do 
against  his  will  what  he  has  the  power  to  do."  The  loill 
itself  is  influenced  and  brought  cheerfully  to  acquiesce 
in  duty. 

2.  From  Mr.  Lard's  representation  here,  Christianity 
inflicts  a  real  and  positive  injury  upon  him  who  em- 
braces it.  While  a  sinner,  the  man  has  the  will  and 
power  to  do  what  God  requires  of  him  ;  but  the  moment 
he  becomes  a  Christian  he  loses  his  poicer !  He  is  in- 
stantly encompassed  with  infirmities  which,  while  he  was 
a  sinner,  he  knew  nothing  about!  !  While  he  was  a  sin- 
ner he  was  independent  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  but  now 
he  is  a  poor,  infirm  creature,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
help  him  !  Mr.  Lard  must  believe  that  the  day  of  mir- 
acles is  not  yet  passed.  If  power  is  what  the  Holy 
Spirit  supplies  the  Christian  with,  he  must  do  it  by 
working  a  miracle.  The  sick  of  the  palsy,  when  com- 
manded to  take  up  his  bed  and  walk,  had  not  the  power; 
the  Holy  Spirit  supplied  it  by  working  a  miracle.  So 
the  impotent  man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda.  If  God  has 
given  a  command  to  his  people  which  they  are  "  more 


QG  AN    EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEAV   OP 

than  willing  to  do,"  but  which  exceeds  their  power,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  supplies  the  power,  how  does  he  do  it? 
Mr.  Lard  must  give  us  light  on  this  subject. 

3.  Mr.  Lard  destroys  the  responsibility  of  the  Chris- 
tian. What  I  lack  the  power  of  doing,  I  am  under  no 
obligation  to  do.  This  I  can  prove  by  Mr.  Lard.  On 
the  259th  page  of  his  book,  he  writes  thus : 

"It  is  not  what  men  can  not  do,  but  what  they  can 
do,  and  have  the  opportunity  of  doing,  that  God  requires 
at  their  hands.  Where  there  is  no  ability,  there  is  no 
responsibility  y 

Reader,  do  not  be  too  severe  on  Mr.  Lard  for  writing 
so  strangely.  The  book  before  us  is  the  first  he  ever 
wrote,  and  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  for  a  man  to  write 
against  the  truth,  without  contradicting  himself. 

§  3. 

Mr.  Lard  words  his  third  argument  thus  : 

'''■That  the  Spirit  does  not  exert  on  the  sinner  a  special 
infiuence  to  induce  him  to  receive  the  truth  and  obey  it, 
lohen  he  is  perfectly  conscious  he  can  and  should  do  both 
without  that  influence." 

Now,  reader,  is  not  that  a  curious  argument  to  prove 
that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit  operates?  Can  you 
see  any  relevancy  in  the  argument?  Rather,  is  there 
not  a  studied  incongruity?  Let  us  put  the  argument 
and  the  proposition  together,  coupled  by  the  conjunc- 
tion, therefore,  and  see  how  they  look  : 

"  The  Holy  Spirit  docs  not  exert  on  the  sinner  a  sp)e- 
cial  infiuence  to  induce  him  to  receive  the  truth,  and  obey 
it,  when  he  is  perfectly  conscious  he  can  and  should  do 
both,  tvithout  that  infiuence  "  therefore,  "  the  Holy  Spirit 
op>erates  in  conversion  through  the  truth  only."  Now, 
if  that  is  not  a  strange  therefore,  I  confess  I  know  not 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  97 

what  is.  Reader,  can  both  the  argument  and  the  prop- 
osition be  true  ?  Can  it  follow  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
operates  in  conversion,  because  the  sinner  is  conscious 
he  can  and  should  both  receive  the  truth  and  obey  it, 
without  the  influence  of  the  Spirit?  And  if  Mr.  Lard 
really  believes  that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit  does 
operate,  how  can  he  say,  in  his  argument,  he  does  not? 

I  need  not  quote  Mr.  Lard's  amplification  of  this 
third  argument.  The  whole  of  it  is  a  premium  to  a 
vaunting,  arrogant,  self-sufficient  spirit.  God  has  ever 
been  jealous  of  his  honor.  He  has,  therefore,  said:  "He 
who  exalteth  himself  shall  be  abased." — Luke  xviii:  14. 
And  they  who  say  :  "  We  are  rich,  and  increased  in 
goods,  and  have  need  of  nothing,"  are  reminded  that 
they  "are  wretched,  and  miserable,  and  poor,  and  blind, 
and  naked." — Rev.  iii:  17. 

When  the  Midianites  had  oppressed  Israel  for  seven 
years,  God  raised  up  Gideon  to  be  their  judge  and  de- 
liverer. He  collected  together,  at  the  well  of  Harod, 
all  the  fighting  men  of  Israel,  to  the  number  of  thirty 
and  two  thousand.  And  now  note  what  followed : 
"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Gideon,  The  people  are  too 
many  for  me  to  give  the  Midianites  into  their  hands;" 
now  mark  the  reason:  "Lest  Israel  vaunt  themselves 
against  me,  saying,  3Iy  own-  hand  hath  saved  me."  In 
order,  therefore,  to  secure  his  own  honor,  the  Lord  re- 
duced their  number  to  three  hundred  men,  and  in  the 
hands  of  none  of  these  did  he  allow  any  weapon  of  war. 
They  took  to  the  battle  a  trumpet,  a  pitcher,  and  a  lamp, 
and  they  cried:  "The  sword  of  the  Lord  and  of  Gideon." 
Thus  they  were  made  to  see  that  the  victory  came  from 
God.  and  to  give  him  tl^e  glory.  Well,  God  claims  the 
same  honor  in  the  conversion  of  a  sinner.  Hence  the 
meaniug  of  that  significant  question  of  the  apostle: 
5 


98  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW    OF 

"  Who  is  Paul,  or  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  b^ 
whom  ye  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man  ?" 
— 1  Cor.  iii:  5.  But  Mr.  Lard  wishes  the  sinner  to  feel, 
and  to  say:  "My  own  hand  hath  saved  me."  He  wants 
him  to  feel  that  his  conversion  is  not  at  all  owing  to 
any  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit! 

The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God.  We  see  his 
agency  in  all  his  works,  in  all  places  of  his  dominion. 
Not  a  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without  his  notice. 
Then  shall  we  not  see  him  in  the  conversion  of  a  soul? 
Shall  the  Spirit  of  God  move  upon  the  face  of  the  waters, 
in  the  original  creation,  and  bring  order  out  of  chaos, 
and  yet  be  excluded  from  the  second  creation?  Shall 
God's  chiefest  work  bring  him  the  least  glory?  No  : 
the  first  lesson  taught  us  in  the  school,  not  of  Bethany, 
but  of  Christ,  is:  "Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing.' 
The  lirst  emotion  of  the  renewed  heart,  is,  "  Glory  to 
God;"  and  its  frankest  confession  is:  "By  the  grace 
of  God  1  am  what  I  am." 

Mr.  Lard,  anticipating  an  objection  that  may  very 
justly  be  made  to  what  he  has,  in  this  argument,  said, 
anticipates  it  thus  : 

"  But  (may  it  not  be  said?)  a  man  is  as  conscious  of 
the  ability  to  live  the  Christian  life,  as  he  is  of  the 
ability  to  believe  the  truth  and  obey  it  ;  and  that  hence, 
by  the  preceding  argument,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  not  necessary  to  the  Christian.  But  this  is  not  true. 
Indeed,  it  is  a  curious  fact,  that  while  men  never  doubt 
their  ability  to  believe  the  truth  and  obey  it,  they  ever 
doubt  their  ability  to  live  the  Christian  life.  It  is  pre- 
cisely in  regard  to  this  point  that  they  do  doubt  their 
ability.  Not  only  do  they  distrust  themselves  in  regard 
to  the  Christian  life,  but  they  seem  to  feel  half  conscious 
that  they  are  unequal  to  it;  and,  hence,  from  this  very 


Jeter's  campbellis:,i  exposed.  99 

distrust,  many  long  decline  entering  upon  it.  We  con- 
clude, then,  that  instead  of  its  being  true  that  men  are 
as  conscious  of  the  ability  to  live  the  Christian  life,  as 
they  are  to  believe  the  truth  and  obay  it,  the  very  re- 
verse is  true." 

1.  In  reply  to  the  above,  I  should  like  to  know,  in 
the  first  place,  whether  the  Cliristian  life  does  not  con- 
sist in  hdu'cing  the  truth  and  oheyhig  itf  If  it  does  not 
consist  in  this,  in  what  does  it  consist?  This,  I  am 
persuaded,  comprehends  the  whole.  I  can  not  imagine 
that  the  Christian  life  consists  in  believing  and  obeying 
something  else  besides  the  truth  / 

2.  I  can  not  think  of  any  duty  enjoined  upon  us  as 
Christians,  more  diiEcult  than  those  comprehended  in 
conversion.  No  truth  is  presented  to  the  Christian  more 
difficult  to  believe,  nor  any  duty  more  difficult  to  per- 
form, than  those  expressed  by  repentance  and  faith. 

3.  But  Mr.  Lard,  I  presume,  confines  the  phrase, 
"believe  the  truth  and  obey  it,"  to  what  Mr.  Campbell 
says  is  all  that  is  required  of  the  sinner  for  admission 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  namely  :  "  The  belief  of 
one  fact,  and  submission  to  one  institution  expressive  of 
it." — Christ.  Rest.,  p.  119.  If  this  is  what  he  means, 
then,  perhaps,  there  may  be  some  truth  in  what  he  says. 
For  no  rational  man,  with  the  evidences  before  him,  can 
withhold  his  assent  from  this  one  fact.  Indeed,  there 
are  very  few  among  those  whom  we  call  sinners,  who  do 
not  already  believe  it.  Disbelievers  in  this  fact  are 
very  rare.  The  conviction  of  it  is  so  general  that  when 
one  avers  his  disbelief  of  it,  he  is  liable  to  have  his 
veracity  called  in  question.  And,  of  course,  when  men 
believe  this  fact,  they  are  able  to  be  immersed,  unless 
surrounded  by  very  peculiar  circumstances.  And  no 
one,  I  presume,  will  dispute  that,  if  to  believe  this  fact, 


100  AN    EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

and  perform  this  act,  are  what  Mr.  Lard  intends  by 
"believing  the  truth  and  obeying  it,"  that  it  is  less  dif- 
ficult than  it  is  to  live  the  Christian  life.  Indeed,  it  is 
a  matter  of  serious  doubt  (it  is  certain  they  can  not) 
whether  such  a  one  ca/a  live  the  Christian  life  at  all. 
He  has  cominenccd  wrong.  The  root  of  the  matter  is  not 
in  him.  A  right  beginning  is  necessary  to  a  right  end- 
ing. Let  us  look  into  what  constitutes  a  right  be- 
ginning, and  then  we  can  clearly  understand  this.  We 
shall  also  clearly  see  Mr.  Lard's  mistake  in  supposing 
the  sinner  has  less  difficult  duties  to  perform  than 
the  Christian,  and  needs  not,  therefore,  the  aids  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

The  reader's  attention  is  invited  to  the  following  pas- 
sages of  Holy  Writ: 

Luke  xiv :  25-33  :  "And  there  went  great  multitudes 
after  him  ;  and  he  turned  and  said  unto  them,  If  any 
man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  his 
mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sis- 
ters, yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  can  not  be  my  dis- 
ciple. And  whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross,  and  come 
after  me,  can  not  be  my  disciple.  For  which  of  you, 
intending  to  build  a  tower,  sitteth  not  down  first,  and 
counteth  the  cost,  whether  he  have  sufficient  to  finish 
it?  Lest  haply,  after  he  hath  laid  the  foundation,  and 
is  not  able  to  finish  it,  all  that  behold  it  begin  to  mock 
him,  saying,  This  man  began  to  build,  and  was  not  able 
to  finish.  So,  likewise,  whosoever  he  be  of  you,  that  for- 
saketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  can  not  be  my  disciple." 

Now,  here  you  see,  a  little  more  is  required  of  the 
sinner,  than  a  simple  belief  of  one  fact,  and  the  per- 
formance of  one  act.  Here  something  is  required,  that 
is  not  so  easily  done  as  Mr.  Lard  might  imagine.  A 
state  of  mind  and  affection  is  here  required,  that  is  as 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  101 

difficult  of  attainment  as  anything  belonging  to  the 
Cliristian  life.  And  he  who  can  attain  this  without  the 
aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  will  not  be  likely  to  need  his 
aid  in  the  performance  of  any  subsequent  duty.  A  love 
for  the  Savior,  superior  to  that  born  to  any  earthly  re- 
lation or  object,  and  even  life  itself,  is  required.  With- 
out this,  we  are  told,  that  discipleship  is  impossible.  To 
begin  without  this,  is  to  begin  wrong,  and  certain  failure 
will  be  the  result.  Can  the  sinner  attain  to  the  posses- 
sion and  the  exercise  of  this  love  for  the  Savior,  without 
the  Holy  Spirit,  Mr.  Lard?  Or  would  you  insist  on  less 
rigid  terms  ?  Then,  of  course,  you  would  insist,  that 
one  can  he  the  Savior's  disciple,  without  forsaking  all 
that  he  hath,  himself  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding  1 

The  sentiment  of  the  passage  above  quoted,  is  pre- 
sented in  a  variety  of  ways,  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
Luke  xii:  31,  the  Savior  says:  "  But  ra^/ter  seek  ye  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  all  these  things  shall  be  added 
unto  you."  This  "but  rather"  signifies,  in  preference 
to.  Seek  the  kingdom  of  God  in  preference  to  what 
ye  shall  eat,  or  what  ye  shall  drink.  In  other  words, 
seek  it  with  the  ivhole  heart. 

A  great  lesson  is  taught  us  in  the  case  of  the  young- 
ruler,  Luke  xviii :  18-22  ;  Matt,  xix  :  16-21  ;  and  Mark 
X  :  17-21.  This  young  man  had  strong  desires  to  ob- 
tain eternal  life.  He  came  running  and  kneeling  to 
Jesus.  And  some  people  might  think  he  had  made 
some  progress  as  a  believer.  He  called  Jesus  "  Good 
Master."  And  his  outward  deportment  was  amiable. 
He  had  committed  no  gross  immorality.  But  alas  !  he 
loved  the  world.  His  heart  was  left  behind  with  his 
wealth.  And  Jesus  would  not  have  him  without  his 
heart.  '-One  thing  thou  lackest,"  said  Jesus.  Now, 
suppose   this  young  man   had  gotten  into   the  Church 


102  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

while  lacking  this  one  thing,  would  he  have  been  in  a 
condition  to  live  the  Christian  life  ?  Many  persons,  I 
fear,  get  into  the  Church  lacking  this  one  thing.  In- 
deed, all  get  into  the  Campbellite  Church,  lacking  it,  if 
they  have  no  more  at  the  time  of  getting  in,  than  the 
belief  that  Jesus  the  Nazarene  is  the  Messiah,  and  im- 
mersion. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  young  ruler  felt  will- 
ing to  do  a  great  deal  to  obtain  eternal  life.  He  was 
willing  to  keep  all  the  commandments  repeated  by  the 
Savior.  Indeed,  he  had  kept  them  from  his  youth  up. 
He  was  both  willing  and  able  to  do  all  this.  But  when 
his  idol  was  struck  at — when  he  was  required  to  sell  all 
he  had,  and  distribute  the  proceeds  to  the  poor,  his  will 
failed  him.  He  could  not  brook  the  idea  of  giving  up 
all  for  Christ  and  eternal  life.  And,  right  here,  the  will 
of  every  sinner  fails.  What  do  you  say,  Mr.  Lard? 
Now,  suppose  that  this  young  man  had  possessed  such 
strong  affection  for  Jesus  Christ,  as  would  have  caused 
him  to  give  up  all  for  him,  would  he  have  found  any 
subsequent  duty  too  difficult  for  him  ?  No,  sir.  Noth- 
ing is  more  difficult  to  attain,  than  this  state  of  affec- 
tion for  the  Savior.  And  yet  every  converted  person 
has  attained  to  it.  Every  friend  of  God  will  sacrifice 
his  Isaac  at  his  command. 

What  the  Savior  required  of  this  young  man,  was  not 
peculiar.  It  was  required  of  the  apostles,  and  they  said: 
"  We  have  left  all  and  followed  thee."  The  same  thing 
is  required  now.  He  who  obeys  the  Gospel,  exercises 
supreme  love  to  the  Savior.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
still  like  the  hidden  treasure,  or  the  pearl  of  great  price. 
To  possess  it,  we  must  sell  all  we  have,  and  hvij  it. — 
Matt,  xiii:  44. 

It  is  clear  from  all  the  foreiroing.  that  the  chief  stress 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  103 

is  laid  by  the  Savior,  on  a  right  state  of  the  heart  toward 
him  and  his  kingdom.  And  now,  unless  Mr.  Lard  is 
prepared  to  assert  that  the  sinner  naturally  has  this,  he 
can  not  pretend,  for  a  moment,  that  the  sinner  is  both 
willing  and  able  to  receive  and  obey  the  truth  without 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  it  is  less  dif- 
ficult to  receive  and  obey  the  truth,  than  it  is  to  live 
the  life  of  the  Christian.  But  for  Mr.  Lard  to  assert 
this,  is  for  him  to  ignore  human  depravity,  to  justify 
the  sinner  in  his  natural  state  of  mind  toward  God,  and 
to  contradict  the  whole  tenor  of  the  word  of  God. 

Now,  reader,  can  you  believe  that  Mr.  Lard  believes 
in  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  at  all? 
I  do  not  believe  that  he  does.  He  may  iterate  and  re- 
iterate it  in  his  proposition,  but  his  argument  will  for- 
ever deny  it.  He  admits  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  case  of  the  Christian  ;  but  what  he  admits  in  the 
case  of  the  Christian,  he  denies  in  the  case  of  the  sinner. 
And,  reader,  does  not  Mr.  Lard  place  the  Christian  in 
a  worse  condition  than  the  sinner?  The  sinner,  accord- 
ing to  him,  must  have,  can  have  nothing  done  for  him, 
but  to  have  the  truth  presented  to  his  mind,  with  its 
proper  evidence,  and  then  he  must  be  left  free  as  the 
unfettered  wind.  No  influence,  internal  or  external, 
must  be  exerted  in  his  case.  But  now  the  poor  Chris- 
tian has  the  truth  presented  to  him,  and  he  is  more 
than  willing  to  receive  it  and  obey  it;  but,  alas!  he  has 
no  power!  If  this  be  so,  one  would  think  it  would 
have  been  better  for  him  to  remain  a  sinner  !  I  had 
rather  be  where  I  am  willing,  able,  free,  lacking  noth- 
ing, than  to  be  where,  however  willing  I  am,  I  have 
no  power ! 

No:  common  sense  as  well  as  the  Bible,  tells  every 
man  who  will  think,  that  it  is  more  difEcult,  humanly 


104  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OP 

speaking,  to  become  a  Christian,  than  to  contimte  to  he 
a  Christian.  And  as  the  Christian  is  still  infirm,  and 
therefore  needs  the  aids  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  much  more 
must  the  sinner  need  them,  when  his  whole  head  is  sick, 
and  his  whole  heart  faint:  when  from  the  sole  of  the 
foot  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no  soundness  in  him, 
but  wounds  and  bruises,  and  putrefying  sores,  which 
have  not  been  closed,  nor  bound  up,  nor  mollified  with 
ointment. 

§4. 

Mr.  Lard  states  his  fourth  argument  thus : 

'■'■That  the  Savior  and  his  apostles  always  addressed  their 
audiences  as  if  their  conversion  depended  alone  on  the  truth 
they  heard,  lohich  is  inconsistent  with  the  hypothesis  that  it 
depended  on  the  truth  and  something  else.^^ 

I  must  be  allowed  to  ask  the  reader  again  if  that  is 
not  a  strange  argument  to  prove  that  in  conversion  the 
Holy  Spirit  ^^  ojjeratesf"  Let  us  couple  the  "argument" 
and  the  "proposition"  by  "therefore,"  and  see  how  they 
tally. 

"  The  Savior  and  his  apostles  always  addressed  their 
audiences  as  if  their  conversion  depended  alone  on  the 
truth  they  heard,  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  hypothe- 
sis that  it  depended  on  the  truth  and  something  else." 
Therefore,  in  "  conversion  the  Holy  Sjiirit  operates 
through  the  truth  only."  Now  can  it  follow  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  operates  through  the  truth  in  conversion 
because  conversion  depends  alone  on  the  truth?  If 
conversion  depends  alone  on  truth  it  can  not  at  the  same 
time  depend  on  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  through  the 
truth.  Conversion  can  not  depend  alone  on  the  instru- 
ment, and  yet  at  the  same  time  depend  on  the  agent. 

Mr.  Lard,  therefore,  justly  admits  that  as  conversion 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  105 

depends  on  the  truth  alone,  it  can  not  "  depend  on  the 
truth  and  something  else."  That  is,  it  can  not  depend 
on  the  truth  and  the  Holy  Spirit:  for  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
"something  else."  Hence  his  argument  is  antagonistic  to 
his  proposition.  If  Mr.  Lard's  argument  is  true,  instead 
of  proving  his  proposition  that  in  conversion  the  Spirit 
operates,  it  proves  the  reverse  !  There  seems  to  be  a 
designed  incongruity  between  the  argument  and  the 
proposition.  We  must  give  up  the  proposition  or  reject 
the  argument.  We  can  not  give  up  the  proposition. 
We  would  simply  clip  oflf  the  word  "only"  with  which 
it  terminates.  We  cheerfully  reject  the  argument,  not 
only  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  proposition,  but  be- 
cause it  is  contrary  to  fact. 

Mr.  Lard  says:  "The  Savior  and  the  apostles  always 
addressed  their  audiences  as  if  their  conversion  depended 
alone  on  the  truth  they  heard."  Now  is  this  true?  I 
say  it  is  not.     Now  for  the  proof. 

In  Matt,  xiii :  1-8,  we  have  the  parable  of  the  sower. 
This  parable  was  spoken  by  the  Savior  to  the  "  multi- 
tude." His  disciples  asked  him,  "Why  spcakest  thou 
to  them  in  parables?"  He  answered,  "Because  it  is 
given  unto  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  but  to  them  it  is  not  given."  Now,  Mr.  Lard, 
did  Jesus  here  address  the  multitudes  "as  if  their  con- 
version depended  on  the  truth  alone?"  Then  what 
does  he  mean  by  the  word  given?  Now  the  multitudes 
had  the  truth  as  well  as  the  disciples,  but  the  multi- 
tudes did  not  understand  it  as  well  as  the  disciples. 
Now  why  did  they  not?  Let  Mr.  Lard  answer  this 
question  consistently  with  his  argument,  if  he  can. 

Besides,  the  Savior  shows  here,  that  none  receive  the 
word,  as  it  ought  to  be  received,  except  such  as  receive 
it  in  a  good  and  honest  heart.  (Luke  viii :  15.)  Will 
5* 


106  AN    EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

Mr.  Lard  tell  from  whence  such  a  heart  conies?  Doea 
it  belong  to  man  ?  It  does  not.  Does  the  mere  pres- 
entation of  the  truth  produce  such  a  heart?  No;  the 
truth  falls  on  the  heart  as  the  seed  falls  on  the  ground. 
But  it  can  prepare  the  heart  for  its  reception  no  more 
than  the  seed  can  prepare  the  ground  for  its  reception. 
Hence  the  preparation  of  the  heart  in  man  is  from — 
■what?  from  whom?  From  the  truth  alone?  Nay,  verily, 
from  the  Lord.      (Prov.  xvi :  1.) 

Again,  John  vi :  26-G5,  we  have  a  discourse  delivered 
by  our  Savior  to  the  multitude  who  sought  him,  because 
they  ate  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  and  were  filled.  In 
this  discourse,  instead  of  addressing  them  as  if  their 
conversion  depended  on  the  truth  alone,  the  Savior  said; 
"  But  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  also  have  seen  me  and 
believe  not.  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come 
to  me."  Again  :  "  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the 
Father,  who  hath  sent  me,  draw  him.''  And,  again  : 
"  Therefore  said  I  unto  you,  that  no  man  can  come  unto 
me  except  it  were  given  him  of  my  Father."  Now"  all 
these  expressions  show  that  the  Savior  regarded  the 
conversion  of  the  sinner  as  depending  not  on  the  truth 
alone,  but  also  something  else.  And  that  something 
else  he  indicated  by  the  terms  "draw"  and  "given." 
These  terms  I  shall  not  now  undertake  to  explain. 

As  the  addresses  of  the  Savior,  so  the  addresses  of  the 
apostles  show  that  they  did  not  regard  the  conversion 
of  sinners  as  depending  on  the  truth  alone.  I  will  now 
cite  but  one  passage  in  proof  of  this  remark.  2  Cor.  iv: 
3-7  :  "  But  if  our  Gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that 
are  lost:  in  whom  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded 
the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the 
glorious  Gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  Gud, 
should  shine  unto  them.     For  we  preach  not  ourselves, 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  107 

but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  and  ourselves  your  servants 
for  Jesus'  sake.  For  God,  who  commanded  the  light  to 
shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  into  our  hearts,  to 
give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  we  have  this  treasure  in 
earthen  vessels,  that  the  excellency  of  the  power  may 
be  of  God,  and  not  of  us." 

Here  was  the  apostle's  hope  of  success.  He  looked 
upon  himself  as  a  mere  "  earthen  vessel,"  in  which  God 
had  placed  the  treasure  of  the  word  of  reconciliation, 
and  that  this  had  been  done  to  show  that  the  "  excel- 
lency of  power  "  of  that  word,  as  seen  in  the  conversion 
of  sinners,  was  of  (iod.  So  in  another  place  the  apostle 
says  :   "  Our  sufficiency  is  of  God." 

These  evidences  are  sufficient  to  show  the  fallacy  of 
Mr.  Lard's  argument.  The  addresses  of  the  Savior  and 
the  apostles  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  show  that  the 
truth  is  God's  appointed  means  or  instrument  of  con- 
version, but  not  such  as  to  show  that  it  alone,  by  itself, 
converts. 

I  wish  to  notice  some  of  3Ir.  Lard's  remarks  under 
his  fourth  reason.     He  says  : 

"Now  the  case  admits  of  but  two  solutions.  Either 
the  conversion  of  their  audiences  depended  alone  on  the 
truth  which  they  heard,  or  the  truth  was  inadequate  to 
effect  it.  If  we  accept  the  former  of  these  solutions 
the  preaching  of  the  Savior  and  the  apostles  is  easily 
accounted  for.  *  *  *  But  if  we  accept  the  latter 
of  these  solutions,  certainly  the  preaching  of  the  Savior 
and  the  apostles,  if  not  what  they  preached,  becomes 
a  riddle  of  no  ordinary  intricacy.  They  knew  that  the 
truth  was  inadequate  to  effect  conversion,  if  such  is  the 
case,  and  yet  they  preached  it." 

If  my  limits  would  allow,  I  would  like  to  transcribe 


108  AN  EXAMINATION  OP  LARD's   REVIEW  OP 

the  whole  of  what  Mr.  Lard  has  here  said :  but  the 
above  must  suffice. 

Mr.  Lard  here  very  plainly  shows  that  he  does  not 
believe  in  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion. 
He  believes  in  the  agency  of  the  truth,  and  the  truth 
alone.  The  truth  with  him  is  the  only  power,  the  only 
influence  in  conversion.  Let  him  deny  the  agency  of 
the  Spirit  in  conversion,  and  he  can  see  a  "fitness  and 
propriety  in  all  the  Savior  and  the  apostles  did."  But 
compel  him  to  believe  that  their  preaching  owed  its 
efficiency  and  success  to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  the  sinner's  heart,  and  instantly  their  preaching 
"becomes"  to  him  "a  riddle  of  no  ordinary  intricacy!" 
Now,  I  can  not  see  that  there  is  less  fitness  and  pro- 
priety in  their  preaching,  if  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  admitted,  than  there  would  be  if  it  is  denied. 
Does  it  follow  that  because  an  instrumentality  can  not, 
by  itself,  succeed,  there  is  no  fitness  or  propriety  in  it? 
If  so,  then  what  fitness  or  propriety  in  the  priests  blow- 
ing the  ram's  horns  around  the  walls  of  Jericho? 

Mr.  Lard's  argument  presents  the  matter  in  this 
light :  We  must  either  dishonor  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  we 
must  dishonor  Christ  and  his  apostles.  If  we  contend 
that  conversion  depends  on  the  truth  alone,  we  honor 
Christ  and  his  apostles  by  showing  a  fitness  and  pro- 
priety in  their  preaching;  but,  at  the  same  time,  we  dis- 
honor the  Holy  Spirit  by  denying  his  agency  in  this 
greatest  work  !  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  are  jeal- 
ous of  the  Spirit's  honor,  and  contend  that  he  prepares 
the  heart  for  the  reception  of  truth,  and  thus  causes  it 
to  germinate  and  produce  fruit,  why,  forsooth,  we  dis- 
honor Christ  and  his  apostles!!  At  once  their  preach- 
ing loses  its  "naturalness,"  and  becomes  an  "intricate 
riddle ! ! " 


JETER'S    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  109 

Let  me  try  this  reasoning  on  a  few  facts.  Mark  ii : 
11  :  "I  say  unto  thee,  Arise  and  take  up  thy  bed,  and 
go  thy  way  into  thine  house."  Here  the  Savior  addressed 
a  palsied  man  :  one  physically  unable  to  obey  his  com- 
mand. He  spake  when  he  knew  that  mere  words  could 
avail  him  nothing :  where,  therefore,  a  Divine  efficiency 
was  necessary.  Now  shall  I  say  that  either  the  cure  of 
this  man  depended  on  the  truth  he  heard,  or  the  truth 
was  inadequate  to  eifect  it?  And  then  add,  "If  we 
accept  the  former  of  these  solutions,  the  words  of  the 
Savior  are  easily  accounted?  We  then  have  reason  not 
simply  in  what  he  said,  but  also  for  his  saying  it.  But 
if  we  accept  the  latter  of  these  solutions,  then  certainly 
the  Savior's  speaking,  if  not  what  he  spoke,  becomes  a 
riddle  of  no  ordinary  intricacy?  Were  I  to  say  this, 
would  you  not  understand  me  as  intending  to  ascribe 
the  cure  of  this  man  to  the  words  alone,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  Divine  efficiency  which  attended  them  ?  Or  as 
charging  the  Savior  with  folly  for  using  words  where 
mere  words  would  be  of  no  avail? 

Take  another  example.  John  v  :  8 :  "  Rise,  take  up 
thy  bed  and  walk."  These  words  were  spoken  to  an 
impotent  man.  Were  there  a  fitness  and  propriety  in 
them  ?  Did  the  Savior  believe  that  the  cure  of  this 
man  depended  on  the  words  he  uttered?  Did  he  pro- 
nounce an  intricate  riddle? 

Take  one  more  example.  Luke  iv :  35,  36  :  "  And 
Jesus  rebuked  him,  saying,  Hold  thy  peace,  and  come 
out  of  him.  And  when  the  devil  had  thrown  him  in 
the  midst  he  came  out  of  him,  and  hurt  him  not.  And 
they  were  all  amazed,  and  spake  among  themselves,  say- 
ing. What  a  word  is  this:  for  with  authority  and  power  he 
commandeth  the  unclean  spirits,  and  they  come  out." 
Now,  Mr.  Lard,  were  there  fitness  and  propriety  here? 


110  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

Look  at  all  the  examples.  His  word  cured  the  palsy; 
his  word  gave  strength  to  the  impotent  man  ;  his  word 
cast  out  devils.  And  so  his  word  converts.  But  none 
of  these  things  was  done  by  his  word  alone.  The  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  present. 

When  the  Jews  said:  "  This  fellow  doth  not  cast  out 
devils  but  by  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  the  devils,"  the 
Savior  let  them  know  he  did  it  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
that  their  charge  was  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
But  Mr.  Lard,  though  he  does  not  say  the  Savior  con- 
verts men  by  Beelzebub,  denies  that  he  does  it  by  the 
Spirit  of  God!     Is  he  not  liable  to  a  similar  charge? 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  the  examples  I  have 
brought  forward  are  not  parallel  to  that  of  the  sinner. 
I  answer  if  they  are  not  parallel,  they  are  analogous. 
In  the  cases  I  have  presented  a  physical  impediment 
had  to  be  overcome,  except  that  of  casting  out  devils. 
In  the  case  of  the  sinner  a  moral  impediment  has  to  be 
overcome.  A  fixed  indisposition  of  heart  is  as  effectual 
a  pi'eventive  to  voluntary  action  as  is  a  physical  ina- 
bility. He  who  is  unable  can  not  act.  He  who  is 
unwilling  will  not  act.  And  just  as  the  Holy  Spirit 
wrought  in  the  paralytic  and  impotent  man  strength 
to  do  the  command  of  the  Savior,  so  he  works  in  the 
human  heart  the  will  to  do  his  good  pleasure.  (Phil, 
ii:  13.) 

But  it  would  seem  from  what  Mr.  Lard  has  said  not 
only  that  the  preaching  of  the  Savior  and  his  apostles, 
if  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary  to  con- 
version, is  an  intricate  riddle,  but  also  that  his  conduct 
can  not  be  vindicated.  "They  knew  that  the  truth  was 
inadequate  to  effect  conversion,  and  yet  they  preached 
the  truth,  -i^  *  -j^  They  knew  that  their  audiences 
could   not  receive  the  truth ;   and  yet  they  denounced 


Jeter's  campbelhsm  exposed.  Ill 

condemnation  against  them  for  rejecting  it."  This,  Mr, 
Lard  thinks,  is  awfully  absurd.  But,  be  it  remembered, 
that  here  Mr.  Lard  misrepresents  our  views.  1.  He 
seems  to  charge  us  with  holding  that  there  is  an  inade- 
quacy in  the  truth  itself  to  convert,  which  inadequacy 
must  be  remedied  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  hold  no 
such  thing.  If  the  "wayside,"  or  "thorny  ground," 
or  "stony  places,"  does  not  produce  fruit,  the  cause  is 
not  in  the  seed  that  falls  upon  it.  The  cause  is  in  the 
ground.  2.  He  seems  also  to  suppose  that  we  regard, 
the  sinner  as  laboring  under  some  physical  or  mental 
inability  to  obey  the  truth.  We  entertain  no  such 
views.  The  barrier  which  the  sinner  presents  to  the 
truth,  and  which  must  be  overcome  by  the  Spirit,  is  that 
of  aversion  to  the  truth  itself  Hence  it  can  not  by  any 
means  be  pleaded  as  an  excuse  for  the  sinner. 

Mr.  Lard's  objection  here  is  as  much  against  God  as 
against  us.  In  Ezek.  iii :  "1-7,  we  read:  "And  he  said 
unto  me,  Son  of  man,  go,  get  thee  unto  the  house  of 
Israel,  and  speak  my  words  unto  them.  For  thou  art 
not  sent  to  a  people  of  a  strange  speech  and  of  a  hard 
language,  but  to  the  house  of  Israel ;  not  to  many  people 
of  a  strange  speech  and  of  a  hard  language,  whose  words 
thou  canst  not  understand.  Surely  had  I  sent  thee  to 
them,  they  would  have  hearkened  unto  thee.  But  the 
house  of  Israel  will  not  hearken  unto  thee  ;  for  they 
will  not  hearken  unto  me  :  for  all  the  house  of  Israel  are 
impudent  and  hard-hearted." 

Now,  here,  you  see,  God  sent  Ezekiel  to  the  house  of 
Israel  to  preach  to  them,  notwithstanding  he  knew  they 
would  not  hearken.  Their  impudence  and  hard-heart- 
edness  presented  an  effectual  barrier  to  the  truth.  Now, 
how  could  God  consistently  do  this?  How  could  he  send 
I^zekiel  when  he  knew  the  house  of  Israel  would  not  hear 


112  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

him?  Answer  these  questions  and  you  answer  Mr  Lard. 
Whether  Mr.  Lard  understands  it  or  not,  it  is  true  on 
the  one  hand  that  no  man  can  come  unto  Jesus  except 
the  Father  draw  him,  while  it  is  true  on  the  other  hand 
that  the  sinner  is  to  blame  for  not  coming.  The  divid- 
ing line  of  this  question  gives  God  all  the  glory  for 
man's  salvation,  while  at  the  same  time  it  acquits  him  of 
all  blame  for  man's  damnation.  He  who  is  saved  must 
thank  his  God,  he  who  is  lost  must  blame  himself. 

Mr.  Lard  winds  up  his  fourth  argument  thus :  ''  Let 
any  one  who  is  not  blinded  by  a  false  system  of  re- 
ligion attentively  study  the  speeches  of  the  Savior  and 
the  apostles,  and  nothing  will  strike  him  more  clearly 
than  this, — that  they  delivered  their  speeches  precisily 
as  other  men  do,  assuming  the  ahility  of  their  audiences 
to  understand  and,  receive  what  they  said,  loithout  any- 
thing more  than  simply  saying  it,  and  leaving  them  to 
abide  the  consequences  of  rejecting  it.  This  is  the 
view  that  chiefly  strikes  that  elemental  common  sense 
with  which  all  are  endowed  ;  and  it  is  not  until  that 
common  sense  has  been  completely  stultified  by  some 
pernicious  theory  of  religion,  that  men  abandon  this 
view,  and  blindly  adopt  one  which  neither  sense  nor 
llevelation   sanctions." 

I  will  reply  to  the  above  and  close  this  number. 

1.  It  is  a  strange  paragraph  to  be  written  by  a  man  who 
pretends  to  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  con- 
version. Look  at  the  emphasized  sentence  and  then 
decide.  Does  the  man  who  wrote  that  sentence  believe 
in  the  influence  or  "operation"  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
conversion  ? 

2.  May  we  not  assume  the  ahility  of  an  audience  to 
undeistand  and  receive  what  we  say,  without  assuming 
their  disposition    to   do   it?     Why  is  Mr.  Lard    always 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  113 

confounding  ahil'dy  and  disposition  ?  In  John  ix  ;  43, 
Jesus  asks  the  Jews  the  question,  "Why  do  ye  not  un- 
derstand my  speech?"  and  he  answers:  "Even  because 
ye  can  not  understand  my  word."  Now  what  was  the 
matter  with  these  Jews,  Mr.  Lard?  Did  the  Savior 
here  assume  the  ability  to  understand  and  receive  what 
he  said,  without  anything  more  than  simply  saying  it? 
Then  why  does  he  say  they  did  not  understand  because 
they  could  not  hear?  You  know  the  Savior  expresses  a 
moral  indisposition. 

3.  This  last  paragraph  of  Mr.  Lard's,  when  stripped 
of  its  drapery,  amounts  to  this :  He  who  maintains  that 
a  sinner  is  not  converted  by  the  truth  alone,  but  by  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  truth,  is  "blind- 
ed by  a  false  system  of  religion."  Then  he  who  main- 
tains Mr.  Lard's  proposition,  is  blinded  by  a  false  system 
of  religion:  for  it  asserts  that  in  conversion  the  Holy 
Spirit  operates  through  the  truth.  If  in  conversion  the 
Holy  Spirit  operates  through  the  truth,  conversion  is  not 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  truth  alone,  but  to  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit  through  it. 

4.  If  no  man  abandons  the  view  that  men  have  the 
"  ability  [disposition]  to  understand  and  receive"  the 
truth  "without  anything  more  than  simply  saying  it," 
until  his  "  common  sense  has  been  completely  stultified 
by  some  pernicious  theor}'  of  religion,"  I  would  like  to 
know  how  that  "  some  pernicious  theory  of  religion" 
came  into  being.  Who  originated  it?  If  no  man  aban- 
dons Mr.  Lard's  rational  view  of  this  subject  until  his 
common  sense  has  been  '■^stultified  hij  some  pernicious 
theory  of  religion,"  who  started  the  pernicious  theory? 
If  Mr.  Lard's  argument  is  true,  I  can  not  see  how  any 
pernicious  theory  could  come  into  being.  If  no  man 
can  abandon  Mr.  Lard's  view  until  his  common  sense 


114  AN   EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

is  stultified  by  some  pernicious  theory  of  religion,  I  can 
not  see  how  any  pernicious  theory  of  religion  could  orig- 
inate ;  for  he  who  originated  the  pernicious  theory  of 
religion,  must  have  abandoned  Mr.  Lard's  view  in  the 
first  place;  but  that  he  could  not  do  until  his  common 
sense  was  stultified.  But  how  would  it  be  stultified 
when  there  was  no  pernicious  theory  of  religion  to  stul- 
tify it?  I  tell  you,  Mr.  Lard  has  given  us  here  a  "rid- 
dle of  no  ordinary  intricacy,"  and  it  will  take  the  wife 
of  more  than  one  Samson  to  explain  it. 

§5. 

Mr.  Lard's  fifth  argument  is  stated  thus  : 

"  //(.  no  land  or  age  has  there  ever  yet  occurred  a,  single 
case  of  conversion  icifhout  the  truth:  a  fact  which  pro ces 
that  conversion  is  effected  only  through  the  truths 

In  examining  this  argument,  I  deem  it  necessary  only 
to  notice  the  force  of  "  a  fact  which  proves  that  conver- 
sion is  effected  only  through  the  truth."  The  force  of 
this  sentence,  in  the  estimation  of  Mr.  Lard,  is,  to  ex- 
clude the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  agent  in  conversion.  The 
following  paragraph  shows  this:  "The  light  of  the  solar 
system  would  seem  to  depend  not  more  absolutely  on  the 
presence  of  the  sun,  than  does  conversion  on  the  pres- 
ence of  the  truth.  This  fact  is  of  itself  enough  to  settle 
forever  the  truth  of  our  position.  Indeed,  we  should  find 
it  difiicult  to  establish  the  connection  between  cause  and 
efi"ect,  if  conversion  is  not  here  shown  to  depend  on  the  truth 
alone." 

Now,  I  do  ask  the  reader,  with  all  the  earnestness  it 
is  possible  for  a  lover  of  the  truth  to  feel,  if  Mr.  Lard 
does  not  here  exclude  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  work  of 
conversion?  I  know  that  this  is  a  charge  to  which  many 
Campbellites  plead  not  guilty,  and  which  the  world  are 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  115 

slow  to  believe.  And  it  is  a  charge  that  nothing  bu<" 
the  force  of  evidence  and  a  sense  of  duty  could  induce 
me  to  make. 

That  3Ir.  Lard's  fifth  argument  does  so  teach,  I  will 
show  by  re-writing  it,  and  substituting  the  word  "  Spirit" 
for  the   word  "truth,''  wherever  the  latter  word  occurs: 

"In  no  land  or  age  has  there  ever  yet  occurred  a  sin- 
gle case  of  conversion  without  the  IIolij  Spirit;  a  fact 
that  proves  that  conversion  is  effected  only  through  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

"The  light  of  the  solar  system  would  seem  to  depend 
not  more  absolutely  on  the  pi'esence  of  the  sun,  than 
does  conversion  on  the  presence  of  the  Holj  Spirit. 
This  fact  is  of  itself  enough  to  settle  forever  the  truth  of 
our  position.  Indeed,  we  should  find  it  difficult  to  estab- 
lish the  connection  between  cause  and  effect,  if  conversion 
is  not  here  shown  to  depend  on  the  Holy  Spirit  alone." 

Now,  were  I  to  write  as  above,  would  not  Mr.  Lard 
and  every  Campbellite  in  the  land,  charge  me  with  ex- 
cluding the  "truth"  from  conversion  ?  Would  they  not 
interpret  the  phrase,  "Spirit  alone,''  as  necessarily  ex- 
cluding the  truth?  Then  must  I  not  interpret  the 
phrase,  "truth  alone,"  as  necessarily  excluding  the  Spir- 
it? I  charge  that  this  fifth  argument  of  Mr.  Lard's  does 
exclude  the  Spirit  from  the  work  of  conversion,  and  that, 
hence,  it,  like  all  its  predecessors,  is  antagonistic  to  his 
"  proposition." 

§  6. 

His  sixth  argument  is  stated  thus: 

"  That  the  Apostle  James  ascribes  conversion  to  the  truth, 
and  to  that  alone,  ichich  forbids  the  belief  that  it  is  effected 
by  the  truth  and  something  viore." 

Mr.  Lard  adds:  "  The  passage  on  which  we  base  this 
argument  is  the  following:  'Of  his  own  (the  Father's) 


116  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth.'"  —  James 
i:  18. 

Mr.  Lard  makes  some  remarks  here  with  which  1 
agree  most  cordially,  namely:  1.  The  term  rendered 
here  "begat,"  is  synonymous  with  the  term,  rendered 
elsewhere,  "born."  2.  That  what  this  passage  ascribes 
to  God,  was,  in  reality,  eflfected  by  the  Spirit :  for  I  have 
already  shown  that  the  Spirit  is  God. 

But  now  let  me  ask  how  it  is  possible  for  this  decla- 
ration of  the  Apostle  James  to  be  made  to  support  Mr. 
Lard's  argument,  which  he  professedly  builds  upon  it? 
Does  James  here  ascribe  conversion  to  the  truth  ahmc? 
Reader,  you  know  he  does  not.  He  ascribes  it  to  God, 
and  mentions  the  truth  simply  as  the  instrument  of  ef- 
fecting it. 

This  Mr.  Lard  seems  also  to  understand,  for  he  says, 
"  The  passage  contains  the  answer  to  two  questions  :  1. 
Are  we  begotten  by  the  Father?  2.  And  if  so,  by  what 
means?  To  the  first  question  the  passage  replies,  we 
are  begotten  by  the  Father.  To  the  second  it  replies, 
we  are  begotten  by  the  truth."  Then  Mr.  Lard  ought 
to  understand  that  the  "  passage"  does  not  support  his 
argument.  It  does  not  "ascribe  conversion  to  the  truth 
alone,"  as  the  argument  asserts. 

Mr.  Lard  further  adds:  "Here,  then,  in  the  present 
passage,  the  truth  of  our  proposition  is  asserted,  actu- 
ally and  unequivocally  asserted,  in  language  as  clear, 
strong,  and  pointed  as  human  ingenuity  can  invent,  or 
human  speech  supply."  Yes,  Mr.  Lard,  the  truth  of 
your  "proposition"  is  asserted  with  the  exception  of  the 
word  "only,"  with  which  it  terminates.  Your  "propo- 
sition" asserts,  that  in  conversion  the  Spirit  operates:  the 
pas.sage  asserts  that  he  "  begets."  But  he  can  not  beget 
without  operating  ;  therefore,  the  passage  and  your  prop- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  117 

osition  agree.  But  remember,  that  your  proposition  is 
one  thing,  and  your  argument  quite  another.  The  pas- 
sage smiles  upon  your  proposition,  but  it  scowls  at  your 
argument. 

Mr.  Lard  continues:  "If  its  truth  is  not  asserted — if, 
in  other  words,  it  is  not  asserted  that  conversion  is  not 
effected  by  the  truth — what  form  of  speech,  we  ask, 
could  assert  it?  The  reply  is,  None."  Now,  why  did 
not  Mr.  Lard  say,  "If,  in  other  words,  it  is  not  asserted 
that  conversion  is  effected  hy  God  loith  the  truth?" 
Was  it  because  he  wished  to  keep  God  out  of  view  in 
this  his  final  remark,  and  thus  divert  the  reader's  at- 
tention from  the  agent  to  the  instrument,  that  it  might 
fill  the  entire  field  of  his  vision,  and  thus  establish,  not 
Mr.  Lard's  proposition,  but  his  peculiar  doctrine,  that 
the  truth  alone  produces  conversion  ? 

In  what  follows,  Mr.  Lard  draws  a  contrast  between 
what  he  supposes  Mr.  Jeter  would  say,  and  what  "  Mr. 
Campbell  and  his  brethren  maintain,"  on  this  subject. 
In  this  effort  Mr.  Lard  shows,  evidently,  that  he  does 
not  understand  us.  But  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  he 
understands  Mr.  Campbell  and  himself.  I  will  quote 
in  extoiso,  that  the  reader  may  have  the  full  benefit  of 
all  he  says : 

"But  Mr.  Jeter  will  doubtless  say,  'I  admit  that  the 
Spirit  ordinarily  effects  conversion  through  the  truth, 
but  maintain  that  in  doing  so,  it  exerts  through  the 
truth  a  peculiar  vital  influence  not  inherent  in  it — that 
a  virtue  which  is  no  part  of  the  truth,  goes  out  of  the 
Spirit  through  the  truth  into  the  soul,  converting  it.' 
In  other  words,  he  will  doubtless  maintain,  that  as 
a  spark  of  electricity  discharged  from  a  point  passes 
through  the  atmosphere  into  an  attracting  object,  so  an 
essential,    quickening    influence  being  discharged  from 


118  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD  S   REVIEW    OF 

the  Spirit  passes  through  the  truth  into  the  soul,  con- 
verting it." 

I,  of  course,  will  not  undertake  to  answer  for  Mr. 
Jeter,  but  I  have  no  idea  that  he  would  say  any  such 
thing  as  the  above.  I  never  heard  of  any  one  who  sup- 
posed that  the  truth  was  between  the  Spirit  and  the  sin- 
ner, as  the  atmosphere  is  between  a  point  from  whence 
a  spark  of  electricity  is  discharged  and  an  attracting 
object!  This  would  represent  us  as  maintaining  that 
the  Holy  Spirit,  or  rather  an  influence  discharged  from 
the  Holy  Spirit,  passes  through  the  truth  on  its  way  to 
the  soul,  for  the  purpose  of  converting  it;  but  that  it  is 
not  the  truth,  but  this  influence  by  which  the  Spirit 
converts :  just  as  it  is  not  the  atmosphere,  but  the  spark, 
by  which  the  electric  fluid  splits  the  oak.  We  maintain 
no  such  thine;.  We  maintain  that  the  truth  is  that  hi/ 
ichic.h  the  Spirit  converts.  Just  as  the  sword  is  that  by 
which  the  soldier  kills  his  enemy.  I  hope  Mr.  Lard  will 
hereafter  understand  us. 

Mr.  Lard,  after  thus  misrepresenting  our  views,  (un- 
intentionally, of  course,)  asks,  "  But  where,  we  ask,  in 
the  first  place,  is  the  evidence  that  this  is  true?  soberly, 
we  ask,  where?"  I  ask  where  is  the  evidence  we  ever 
maintained  such  views?  soberly,  I  ask,  where?  They 
are  not  found  in  Jeter's  Review  of  Carapbellism.  Mr. 
Lard  adds:  "This  is  precisely  the  point  at  which  the 
diff"erence  between  him  and  us  begins  to  show  itself  I 
would  rather  say — this  is  precisely  the  point  at  which 
Mr.  Lard  has  greatly  misrepresented  us. 

But  now  Mr.  Lard  gives  what  "  Mr.  Campbell  and  his 
brethren  maintain."  Let  us  be  all  attention  :  for  that 
is  what  we  have  been  anxious  to  know.  He  says,  •'  We 
maintain  that  the  truth,  as  such — that  is,  in  the  truth 
as  divine,  as  of  the  Spirit — resides  the  power  by  which 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  119 

in  all  cases  the  Spirit  effects  conversion  :  a  power  wliich, 
as  we  conceive,  can  not  be  intensified  and  the  human 
will  left  free,  and  which,  for  that  reason,  is  all  the  in- 
fluence that  can  be  admitted  to  be  present  in  conversion. 
We  go  further,  and  maintain  that  it  is  as  much  the  law 
of  conversion  that  it  shall  be  effected  by  the  truth,  as  it 
is  of  reproduction  that  an  oak  shall  spring  from  an 
acorn  and  not  from  a  miracle;  and,  further,  that  we  are 
no  more  at  liberty  to  suppose  the  Spirit  absent  from  the 
work  of  conversion,  from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  law  of 
conversion  that  it  shall  result  from  the  truth  and  not 
from  something  else,  than  we  are  to  suppose  the  Creator 
absent  from  the  work  of  reproduction,  that  an  oak  shall 
spring  from  an  acorn  and  not  from  a  miracle." 

Now,  do  we  understand  Mr.  Lard?  If  we  understand 
him,  his  meaning  is  this:  There  is  that  in  the  acorn 
which  produces  the  oak;  so  there  is  that  in  the  truth 
which  produces  conversion.  And  the  Spirit  now  con- 
verts the  sinner  with  the  truth  as  God  produces  the  oak 
with  the  acorn.  Then,  of  course,  Mr.  Lard  considers 
the  human  heart  as  susceptible  of  acting  upon  the  truth 
to  cause  it  to  germinate,  as  the  soil  is  to  act  upon  the 
acorn.  Let  me  run  out  the  analogy  a  little  further,  and 
I  would  have  no  serious  objection  to  it.  Say,  just  as 
the  acorn  is  used  to  produce  the  oak,  so  is  the  truth 
used  to  convert  the  sinner.  But,  as  the  acorn  can  not 
germinate  unless  it  fall  into  good  ground^  and  is  watered 
by  the  rains  of  heaven  and  warmed  by  the  genial  rays 
of  the  sun,  so  the  truth  must  be  "  received  into  a  good 
and  Jionest  heart,"  and  watered  and  warmed  by  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Spirit,  to  produce  a  '■  new  creature  in 
Christ  Jesus."  What  do  you  say,  Mr.  Lard?  Will  you 
take  the  human  heart  just  as  it  is,  and  say  it  is  good 
enough?    If  not,  your  analogy  is  imperfect.     But  if  you 


120  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARd's  REVIEW   OF 

do,  you  overlook  human  depravity.  And  if  you  do,  no 
wonder  you  deny  the  agency  of  the  Spirit. 

But  there  is  one  point  in  this  specification  of  "  Mr. 
Campbell  and  his  brethren's  views,"  which  claims  special 
attention.  It  is  this:  "In  the  truth  i-esides  the  power 
by  which  the  Spirit  effects  conversion  :  a  power  which 
can  not  be  intensified  and  the  human  will  be  left  free, 
and  which  for  that  reason,  is  all  the  influence  that  can 
be  permitted  to  be  present  in  conversion.  Then,  of 
course,  all  the  influence  that  is  present  in  conversion  is 
now  residing  in  the  truth.  Then,  of  course,  the  efficiency 
of  the  truth  is  now  in  it,  and  would  be  there,  if  there 
was  now  no  Holy  Spirit !  Just  as  the  explosive  power  of 
gunpowder  would  remain  in  it,  if  the  inventor  or  maker 
were  dead.  Yea,  more;  it  is  now  beyond  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  add  an  iota  to  the  power  and  efii- 
ciency  of  his  own  truth  without  infringing  upon  the 
freedom  of  the  human  will!  Then,  of  course,  we  hence- 
forth expect  nothing  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  has 
done  all  he  can  do.  It  is  superfluous  to  invoke  his  aid. 
He  has  given  his  word  to  his  ministers.  Now  let  them 
J)ublish  it,  and  let  him  retire  from  the  field  !  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, Mr.  Lard,  etat  majoi-,  will  deliver  their  speeches, 
assuming  the  ability  of  their  audiences  to  understand 
and  receive  what  they  say  without  anything  more  than 
simply  saying  it,  and  say  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  Hands 
off!  You  must  not  interfere,  or  you  will  destroy  the 
free  agency  of  these  sinners  ! !  !  " 

I  must  remind  the  reader  that,  notwithstanding  Mr. 
Lard  argues  as  here  seen,  his  professed  object  is  to  prove 
that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit  operates! 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  121 

§  '^• 

Mr.  Lard  states  his  seventh  argument  thus: 

"  The  Apostle  Peter  ascribes  conversion^  or  being  born 
again,  to  the  truth  and  to  that  alone,  as  the  means  by  which 
it  had  been  effected,  and  that,  therefore,  we  are  not  at  lib- 
erty to  ascribe  it,  even  in  part,  to  another  and  unknown 
cause." 

Now,  reader,  is  not  that  a  singular  argument  to  prove 
that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit  operates?  If  by  Peter 
conversion  is  ascribed  to  the  truth  alone,  and  if,  there- 
fore, we  are  not  at  liberty  to  ascribe  it  even  in  part  to 
another  cause,  how  can  we  ascribe  it  to  the  Holy  Spirit? 
We  can  not  ascribe  conversion  to  the  truth  alone  and 
at  the  same  time  ascribe  it,  even  in  part,  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  We  may  ascribe  conversion  to  the  truth  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  both,  but  if  we  do,  we  must  leave  out  the 
word  "alone."  We  must  predicate  the  word  "alone" 
of  neither. 

But  let  us  follow  Mr.  Lard  through  the  amplification 
of  this  argument  also.  The  words  of  the  apostle  to 
which  Mr.  Lard  alludes,  are :  "  Being  born  again,  not  of 
corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of 
God." — 1  Peter  i :  23.  Now  do  these  words  of  Peter 
justify  us  in  ascribing  conversion  to  the  truth  alone  f 
Do  they  require  us  to  exclude  the  Holy  Spirit?  How 
came  Mr.  Lard  to  overlook  the  preceding  verse?  "See- 
ing ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth 
through  the  Spirit,"  etc.  Does  not  conversion  include 
"obeying  the  truth?"  Then  that  much  of  it,  at  least, 
is,  according  to  Peter,  through  the  Spirit.  And  though 
he  adds,  "  being  born  again,  ^-f:  *  *  by  the  word  of 
God,"  he  does  not  say,  "  by  the  word  of  God  alone." 

Mr.  Lard  is  the  most  singular  writer  I  ever  read  after 


122  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LAKd's   REVIEW   OF 

He  writes  first  one  way,  and  tlien  another.  He  blows 
hot  and  cold  alternately,  as  it  suits  hiiu.  Now  he  is 
maintaining  his  proposition,  and  anon  he  is  undermin- 
ing it !     Here  follows  a  good  orthodox  specimen  : 

"  The  term,  as  employed  in  the  present  passage,  ex- 
presses precisely  what  is  meant  by  the  expression,  'born 
of  the  Spirit;'  and  the  effect  which  it  denotes  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit  as  the  author  of  it.  Consequently 
we  have  now  to  determine,  not  what  effect  was  produced, 
but  by  what  power  it  was  produced  ;  not  what  agent  was 
employed,  but  with  what  instrument  it  (he)  wrought. 
In  a  word,  the  effect  is  known,  and  we  have  now  to 
seek  the  instrumental  cause  from  which  it  resulted." 

I  rejoice  to  ascribe  conversion  to  the  Spirit  as  its 
author,  and  I  acknowledge  the  truth  to  be  the  instru- 
mental cause  from  which  it  results.  Now,  is  it  not  a 
pity  we  can  not  let  the  matter  rest  here  ?  We  have  as- 
certained that  conversion  is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  the  agent,  and  to  the  truth  as  the  instrument,  and 
with  this  I  am  content.  But  I  must  give  the  reader 
what  follows,  though  it  spoils  all  the  above: 

"  We  have  an  effect,  A ;  which  is  supposed  to  result 
from  two  causes,  B  and  C.  We  first  try  to  produce  the 
effect  with  B,  and  fail :  we  then  try  C,  and  fail.  In  this 
case  the  effect  is  held  to  be  a  joint  result  from  both  B 
and  C.  Or,  we  try  to  produce  the  effect  with  B,  and 
fail :  we  then  try  C,  and  succeed.  In  this  case  the  effect 
is  held  to  result  from  C  alone,  and  B  is  excluded." 

Well,  what  now,  Mr.  Lard?  Will  you  say  A  is  con- 
version effected  by  B  and  C  ?  That  B  is  the  agent,  and 
C  is  the  instrument?  Or  will  you  say  it  is  effected  by 
C  alone,  and  thus  exclude  B?  If  you  do,  you  will  stul- 
tify all  you  have  said  above.  But  go  on,  we  will  hear 
your  application  : 


JETEUS    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  123 

"  3Ir.  Jeter  maintains  that  this  effect  resulted  from  two 
causes."  Well,  did  you  not  just  now  maintain  the  same 
thing?  Did  we  not  understand  you  just  now  as  saying, 
that  this  eifect  "  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  as  its 
author,"  and  to  the  word  of  Clod  as  the  "instrumental 
cause?"  And  now  do  you  intend  to  take  it  back?  You 
say: 

"  Mr.  Jeter  says  the  effect  results  from  the  truth  and 
an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  the  truth.''  But 
you  "  deny  that  the  latter  cause  had  any  hand  in  pro- 
ducing the  effect."'  Then  why  do  you  talk  about  believ- 
ing in  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  You  say:  "Let 
now  the  difference  between  us  be  decided  by  Divine 
authority."  Well,  that  is  just  what  we  intend  to  do. 
"How,  then,  was  the  effect  produced?"  Say  yourself. 
"The  Bible  answers,  By  the  word  of  God."  Yes;  but 
does  the  Bible  say  by  the  word  of  God  alone?  It  does 
not.  How  then  can  you  say  that  the  effect  resulted  from 
the  first  cause  alone?  And  if  it  did,  how  can  you  say 
your  "position  is  true?"  Your  position!  What  is 
your  position?  That  the  truth  alone  converts,  as  here 
affirmed?  No:  it  is  that  in  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit 
operates  through  the  truth  —  not  that  the  truth  alone 
operates. 

After  ascribing  conversion  to  the  truth  alone,  I  am 
not  surprised  that  Mr.  Lard  should  try  to  deter  us  from 
charging  upon  him  the  "word  alone  system."     He  says: 

"  We  are  not  ignorant,  however,  of  the  impotent 
clamor  which  Mr.  Jeter  and  a  few  bigots  will  raise 
against  these  conclusions.  This,  they  will  cry  in  the 
ears  of  the  multitude  deep-mired  in  the  '  ditch,'  is  the 
'  word  alone  system.'  Many  a  gracious  compliment  will 
be  lavished  upon  the  sectarian  divinity,  Orthodoxy ; 
and  her  smiles  will  be  deemed  more  than  a  compensa- 


124  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

tion  for  all  failures  to  defend  her  cause.  But  we  beg  to 
tell  these  gentlemen,  that  this  is  not  the  'word  alone 
system.'  The  '  word  alone  system '  conceives  the  Spirit 
to  be  ever  absent  from  the  work  of  conversion;  this  sys- 
tem conceives  it  to  be  ever  present:  the  'word  alone 
system '  conceives  the  truth  to  be  as  destitute  of  vital 
force  as  the  words  of  an  absolete  almanac ;  this  system 
conceives  the  truth,  since  of  the  Spirit,  to  teem  with  an 
intense  quickening  power,  but  ever  resident  in  the  truth 
as  Divine  :  the  '  word  alone  system '  is  false ;  this  sys- 
tem is  true." 

I  have  made  this  long  quotation  from  Mr.  Lard,  that 
he  may  not  complain  of  being  garbled.  I  can  not,  how- 
ever, regard  Mr.  Lard  as  successful  either  in  describing 
the  '  word  alone  system,'  or  freeing  himself  from  the 
charge  of  maintaining  it. 

1.  He  says  :  "  The  '  word  alone  system  '  conceives  the 
Spirit  to  be  ever  absent  from  the  work  of  conversion  ; 
this  system  conceives  it  to  be  ever  present."  Well, 
what  of  that?  If  you  do  have  him  ever  present,  you 
won't  let  him  do  anything.  You  tell  him  to  his  face, 
he  can  not  increase  the  efficiency  of  his  own  truth  with- 
out infringing  on  the  freedom  of  the  human  will ! 

2.  You  say  the  "  word  alone  system  "  "  conceives  the 
truth  to  be  as  destitute  of  vital  force  as  the  words  of  an 
obsolete  almanac."  This  can  not  be.  It  is  impossible 
for  any  man,  it  seems  to  me,  to  believe  the  word  alone 
can  convert,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  believe  it  to  be 
so  destitute  of  vital  force.  This  would  be  to  affirm  its 
efficiency  and  deny  it  at  the  same  time.  No,  sir;  the 
"  woi'd  alone  system"  is  that  system  that  denies  any 
other  power  but  that  of  the  truth  to  be  present  in  con- 
version. And  that  is  what  your  system  denies.  Though 
you   talk   about  an    "  intense   quickening   power,"    you 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  125 

predicate  it  of  the  truth  alone ;  you  say  it  "  is  ever 
resident  in  the  truth."  And  now  the  truth,  with  you, 
does  its  quickening,  converting  work,  independently  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.     This,  sir,  is  the  "word  alone  system." 


Mr.  Lard  states  his  eighth  argument  thus  : 

'■'■Belief  in  Christ,  and  hein'j  horn  of  God,  are  identic- 
al;  and  that,  since  belief  in  Christ  depends  on  the  truth 
alone,  therefore,  being  born  of  God,  or  conversion,  depends 
on  the  truth  alo7ie." 

Here  I  must  be  allowed  to  ask  again,  is  not  that  a 
strange  argument  to  prove  that  in  conversion  the  Spirit 
operates?  If  conversion  depends  on  the  truth  alone,  I 
again  say,  it  can  not,  at  the  same  time,  depend  on  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

The  text  on  which  he  bases  this  argument,  is  the  fol- 
lowing:  "Whoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
is  born  of  Grod." — 1  John  v:  1.  How  does  Mr.  Lard 
make  this  text  support  his  argument?  Well,  in  this 
way.  He  says :  "  From  this  passage  it  is  most  clear, 
either,  that  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and  to  be 
born  of  God,  are  identical,  or,  that  they  are  so  insepa- 
rabl}''  connected,  that  we  can  not  produce  the  former, 
■without,  at  the  same  time,  and  by  the  same  means,  pro- 
ducing the  latter.  ^  -i^  -i^  Whatever  influences, 
then,  will  produce  belief  in  Christ,  will  also  produce  the 
effect — if  belief  itself  is  not  that  effect — denoted  by  the 
expression  '  born  of  God.'  But  the  meaning  of  this  ex- 
pression is  the  acceptation  in  which  we  are  now  taking 
the  term  '  conversion.'  With  the  view,  therefore,  of 
ascertaining  on  what  immediate  cause  conversion  de- 
pends, we  shall  now  proceed  to  ascertain  on  what  imme- 
diate cause  belief  or  ftiith  depends." 


126  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

Mr.  Lard  then  goes  on  to  state  tlie  cause  on  wMcli 
faith  depends  thus : 

"  The  passage  we  first  adduce,  is  the  following,  from 
the  parable  of  the  Sower  :  '  Now  the  parable  is  this  :  the 
seed  is  the  word  of  God.  Those  by  the  wayside  are  they 
that  hear :  then  cometh  the  devil  and  taketh  away  the 
word  out  of  their  hearts,  lest  they  should  believe  and 
be  saved.'  " 

Here,  Mr.  Lard  thinks,  is  proof  that  faith  depends  on 
the  word  of  God.  He  thinks  that  Satan,  wishing  to 
prevent  the  faith  and  salvation  of  the  wayside  hearers, 
would,  of  course,  catch  away  the  cause  on  which  they 
depend.  But  does  Mr.  Lard  believe  that  the  wayside 
men  would  have  believed  and  been  saved  but  for  Satan? 
How  came  the  word  to  lie  exposed?  The  ground  was 
faulty.  The  heart  of  these  men  teas  not  right.  Mr.  Lard 
quotes  from  Luke  viii :  12.  Why  did  he  not  collate 
Matt,  xiii :  19?  "When  any  one  heareth  the  word  of 
the  kingdom,  and  tinderstandeth  it  not,  then  cometh  the 
wicked  one,"  etc.  Will  Mr.  Lard  contend  that  the  word 
will  produce  faith  in  any  one  who  does  not  understand 
it  ?  Something  more  than  the  bare  word  is  necessary 
to  faith. 

Now,  I  wish  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind  that  I  do  not 
deny  that  faith  and  salvation  depend  on  the  word  of 
God.  All  I  deny  is,  that  they  depend  on  the  word  of 
God  alone — the  word  of  God  hij  itself.  They  depend  on 
the  word  of  God  onJy  as  the  means  employed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  produce  them. 

But  the  reader  may  ask,  is  this  not  what  Mr.  Lard 
"means?  I  will  let  him  speak  for  himself:  "  But  we  are 
not  quite  done  with  the  wayside  men.  Mr.  Jeter  says. 
The  influence  for  which  he  contends,  is  exerted  'ordi- 
narily '   through   the  truth.     Is  it  now  exerted   on    the 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  127 

wayside  men,  or  is  it  not?  Of  course,  it  naust  be  one 
or  the  other.  Suppose,  then,  it  is  exerted.  Still,  the 
truth  is  taken  away  ;  but  when  the  truth  is  taken  away, 
what  becomes  of  the  influence?  Does  it  remain?  If 
so,  where  is  the  advantage  of  it?  for  the  men  are  still 
infidels.  But  suppose  it  is  not  exerted.  Still,  there 
remains  in  the  word  a  power  fully  adequate  to  produce 
belief  icithout  it;  hence  it  is  not  necessary."  Here  you 
have  it.  Of  course  Mr.  Lard  believes  that  the  word 
would  have  produced  faith  in  the  wayside  men  indejjend- 
ent  of  any  influence  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  devil !  Yet,  the  Savior  says  emphatically, 
they  did  not  understand  the  word  ! 

Mr.  Lard  next  quotes,  as  a  proof  text,  Rom.  x  :  17  : 
"So,  then,  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
word  of  God."  Mr.  Lard  thinks  that  from  this  passage: 
"  Since  it  asserts  strictly  that  faith  comes  by  hearing 
the  truth,  the  implication  is,  that  it  comes  in  no  other 
way."  "For  the  instant,"  says  he,  "we  show  that  faith 
results  from  the  truth,  and  some  other  cause,  say  '  an 
influence  distinct  from  and  above  the  truth,'  that  in- 
stant we  cast  a  doubt  over  the  passage."  Do  we,  indeed? 
Of  course,  then,  we  must  exclude  the  Holy  Spirit :  for 
he  is  a  "  cause  distinct  from  and  above  the  truth !  " 
And  yet,  Mr.  Lard  is  arguing  to  prove  that  he  operates! 

Let  us  hear  Mr.  Lard  a  little  further:  "  'But,  I  grant,' 
Mr.  Jeter  will  say,  '  that  faith  comes  by  hearing  the 
word  of  God,  but  maintain  that  the  Spirit  must  aid  the 
sinner  to  hear — that  is,  to  understand  and  receive  the 
truth.'  But  of  the  truth  of  this  there  is  no  evidence. 
It  is  a  mere  creation  of  the  human  fancy,  countenanced 
neither  by  reason  nor  the  Bible.  It  grew  out  of  that 
inveterate  depravity  insisted  on  by  Mr.  Jeter,  and  which 


128  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW    OP 

is  itself  a  dream.  Hence,  the  dream  became  parent  to 
the  fancy,  which  is  the  true  amount  of  both." 

Hear  that,  reader?  The  doctrine,  then,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  produces  faith  through  or  by  means  of  the  word 
is  a  fancy,  is  it?  A  dream,  is  it?  And  yet,  Mr.  Lard's 
position  is,  that  the  Spirit  operates!  But  what  is  Mr. 
Lard's  conclusion?  Hear  it:  "We  conclude,  then,  that 
belief  in  Christ,  and  being  born  of  God,  are  identical ; 
and  since  belief  in  Christ  is  shown  by  the  preceding 
premises  to  depend  on  the  truth  alone,  that  the  truth 
alone  is  that  on  which  depends  being  born  of  God,  or 
conversion." 

Now,  reader,  how  does  this  conclusion  harmonize  with 
Mr.  Lard's  position  :  "  In  conversion  the  Holy  Spirit 
operates  through,  the  truth?  "  I  must  again  say,  if  con- 
version depends  on  the  truth  alone,  it  can  not  depend  on 
the  operation  of  the  Spirit  through  the  truth. 

Now,  reader,  dropping  Mr.  Lard,  let  us  tarry  a  little 
while  longer,  and  consult  for  ourselves  this  celebrated 
saying  of  the  apostle.  Let  us  ask  ourselves  the  question, 
did  Paul  intend  to  teach,  that  faith,  and  consequently 
conversion,  depend  on  the  truth  alone?  Examine  the 
contest.  Let  us  read  from  the  16th  verse  :  "  But  they 
have  not  all  obeyed  the  Gospel.  For  Isaiah  saith,  Lord, 
who  hath  believed  our  report?  So  that  faith  cometh 
by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God.  But  I 
say,  have  they  not  heard?  Yes,  verily,  their  sound 
went  into  all  the  earth,  and  their  words  unto  the  end 
of  the  world." 

Then,  Mr.  Lard,  why  did  they  not  all  believe?  You 
say  faith  depends  on  the  word  of  God  alone.  Well,  Paul 
says,  they  have  all  heard.  But  he  says,  they  have  not 
all  obeyed.     Now,  how  is  this?     The  21st  verse  answers: 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  129 

"  But  to  Israel  he  saith,  'All  day  long  have  I  stretched 
forth  my  hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying 
people.'"  Now,  if  faith  is  ever  produced  in  such  a 
people  as  these,  will  it  be  done  by  the  word  alone? 
The  word  alone  has  already  failed.  A  few,  however, 
believed.  Who  were  they?  "A  remnant  according  to 
the  election  of  grace." — Rom.  xi:  5.  And  the  time  will 
come  when  "all  Israel  shall  be  saved."  Yes,  this  "dis- 
obedient and  gainsaying  people"  shall  have  "ungodli- 
ness turned  from  "  them.  But  how  will  this  be  done  ? 
By  the  word  alone?  Let  Rom.  xi:  26,  answer.  "And 
so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved:  as  it  is  written.  There 
shall  come  out  of  Zion  the  deliverer,  and  shall  turn  away 
ungodliness  from  Jacob." — Comparelsa.  lix:  20,  21,  and 
Psalm  xiv  :  7.  Does  all  this  look  as  if  Paul  thought 
that  faith  and  conversion  depend  on  the  truth  alone? 

When  Paul  says,  "Faith  cometh  by  hearing,"  and  then 
immediately  adds:  "But  I  say,  have  they  not  heard? 
yes,  verily,"  etc.,  does  he  not  forbid  the  conclusion  that 
a  simple  hearing  of  the  truth  is  all  that  is  necessary  to 
faith?  There  is  a  meaning  in  the  word  hearing,  that 
must  not  be  overlooked.  There  are  those  "who  have 
ears  but  hear  not."  In  one  sense  they  hear,  in  another 
they  do  not.  All  Israel  had  heard,  in  one  sense,  yet 
not  in  that  sense  that  produces  faith.  Had  they  heard 
in  that  sense,  they  would  have  come  to  Christ.  In 
John  vi :  45,  the  Savior  says :  "  It  is  written  in  the 
prophets,  'And  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God.'  Every 
one  that  hath  heard,  and  hath  learned  of  the  Father, 
cometh  unto  me."  Do  you  believe  that,  Mr.  Lard  ? 
Then,  of  course,  you  believe  that  all  who  do  not  come 
to  Christ,  have  not  heard  in  that  sense :  and,  therefore, 
not  in   the  sense  that  produces  faith.     Then,  how  can 

6* 


130  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

you  feel  justified  in  saying  faith  depends  on  the  truth 
alone? 

Why  is  it  men  have  ears  to  hear,  and  hear  not?  The 
prophet  answers :  "Behold,  their  ear  is  uncircumcised 
and  they  can  not  hearken  :  behold,  the  word  of  the  Lord 
is  unto  them  a  reproach  ;  they  have  no  delight  in  it." 
— Jer.  vi :  10.  From  where  do  they  get  the  hearing  ear 
and  the  understanding  heart?  From  the  word  alone? 
Does  that  which  is  heard  give  the  hearing?  Let  Moses 
answer  :  "  Yet  the  Lord  hath  not  given  you  an  heart  to 
perceive,  and  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to  hear,  unto  this 
day." — Deut.  xxix:  4. 

The  truth  is,  God  not  only  gives  the  word  which  is 
to  be  heard,  but  also  the  ear  to  hear  it;  and  thus  he 
makes  faith  and  salvation  depend  on  the  Wo7-d  and 
/Spirit  both. 

§9- 
Mr.  Lard  states  his  ninth  argument  thus : 
"(9w?-  ninth  argument  is,  that  the  original  of  John  iii : 
8,  in  its  most  natural  sense — that  ivhich  it  yields  hy  the 
soundest  rules  of  interpretation — teaches,  that  being  born  of 
the  Spirit  (or  conversion')  is  effected  by  hearing,  or  receiving 
the  truth." 

Well,  I  would  say,  in  reply,  no  one  disputes  that 
being  born  of  the  Spirit,  or  conversion,  is  effected  by 
hearing  or  receiving  the  truth.  Of  course  there  can  be 
no  birth  of  the  Spirit,  or  conversion,  where  the  truth  is 
not  heard  or  received.  But  that  is  not  the  question. 
The  question  is,  can  the  truth  be  heard  or  received  in- 
dependently of  the  Holy  Spirit?  Can  the  truth  alone 
secure  such  a  hearing  and  reception  as  will  produce  the 
new  birth,  or  conversion?  Does  John  iii:  8,  either  in 
the  original  or  in  the  common  version,  teach  that? 


JKTEU'S   CA3IPUELLISM    EXPOSED.  131 

Mr.  Lard  thinks  "the  verse  in  the  original  contains 
an  '  exphination  '  of  the  long-litigated  clause,  '  born  of 
the  Spirit.'  Others,"  he  says,  "  hold  that  the  verse  con- 
tains an  '  illustration  '  of  the  mysterious  manner  in 
which  the  Spirit  quickens  the  sinner  into  life."  Then 
both  Mr.  Lard  and  "others"  have  mistaken  its  meaning. 
The  "  verse  "  was  designed  to  impress  Nicodemus  with 
the  unreasonableness  of  his  objection  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  new  birth,  on  account  of  its  mysteriousness  to  him. 
He  (Nicodemus)  knew  that  the  wind  blew,  by  the  fact 
that  he  heard  the  sound  of  it.  And  though  he  could 
not  comprehend  its  motions — could  not  tell  whence  it 
came  or  whither  it  went — still,  he  did  not  dispute  the 
fact  that  it  blew.  So  the  fact  of  the  new  birth  was  to  be 
admitted  on  its  own  proper  evidence,  though  he  could 
not  understand  everything  connected  with  it.  This,  it 
appears  to  me,  is  the  force  of  the  word  "so."  "So  is 
every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  Compare  verses 
14,  15:  "As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness, even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up."  That 
is,  in  like,  or  similar  manner.  As  the  blowing  of  the 
wind  is  mysterious,  so  is  the  new  birth ;  and  as  we  have 
evidence  of  the  blowing  of  the  wind,  so  have  we  of  the 
new  birth.  And  as,  therefore,  we  admit  the  one,  so  must 
we  admit  the  other. 

If  this  view  of  the  test  is  correct,  (and  of  this  I  leave 
the  reader  to  judge,)  then  there  is  no  attempt  either  at 
"explanation"  or  "illustration"  of  the  "birth  of  the 
Spirit."  There  is  simply  an  attempt  at  showing  the 
unreasonableness  of  Nicodemus's  objections. 

Mr.  Lard  translates  the  "  original  of  the  text "  thus : 
"  The  Spirit  breathes  where  it  sees  fit,  and  you  hear  its 
voice,  but  you  know  not  whence  it  comes  nor  whither  it 
goes:  in  this  way  is  (begotten)  every  one  that  is  begot- 


132  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

ten  by  the  Spirit."  He  occupies  full  ten  pages  by  criti- 
cisms and  remarks.  With  some  of  them  I  agree,  with 
some  I  do  not.  1.  I  agree  that  the  word  pneuma,  ren- 
dered in  the  common  version  "wind,"  occurs  in  the 
Greek  New  Testament  three  hundred  and  eighty-six 
times.  2.  I  admit  that  it  is  rendered  "  wind  "  only  in 
this  single  passage.  3.  I  admit  that  in  every  other  but 
one  it  is  rendered  "spirit,"  or  "ghost."  4.  I  admit, 
also,  that  the  word  translated  "  bloweth  "  occurs  in  the 
Greek  New  Testament  seven  times;  but  I  deny  that  "in 
six  of  these  times  it  is  used  to  express  the  acts  of  things.'''' 
It  is  uniformly  used  to  express  the  action  of  loind.  Here 
are  the  examples.  Reader,  consult  them  for  yourself: 
Matt,  vii:  25-27;  Luke  xii :  55;  John  vi :  18;  Acts 
xxvii :  40,  and  Rev.  vii:  1. 

Now  while  pneuina  has  so  many  examples  in  favor 
of  rendering  it  "  spirit,"  pnei  has  no  example  in  favor 
of  rendering  it  "  breathe."  There  are  two  examples 
where  the  word  "breathe"  occurs,  namely,  John  xx  : 
22,  and  Acts  ix  :  1.  In  the  former,  the  Greek  word  is 
enephuscse,  in  the  latter  it  is  empneon.  These  facts, 
then,  to  say  the  least,  render  very  doubtful  Mr.  Lard's 
translation. 

Mr.  Lard,  after  laboring  to  make  the  Greek  word  pnei 
allow  him  to  render  it  "breathe,"  says,  "breathe"  means 
"speak."  Is  "speak  the  proper  translation  of  p?i«.^ 
Has  Mr.  Lard  overlooked  the  fact,  that  while  speak,  or 
some  equivalent  word,  such  as  "said,"  etc.,  occurs  hun- 
dreds of  times  in  the  common  version,  it  is  never  the 
translation  of  this  word,  but  always  of  some  other  ?  If 
the  Savior  intended  to  say,  "The  Spirit  speaks  where  it 
(he)  sees  fit,"  why  did  he  not  use  the  word  laleof  This 
is  the  word  Paul  uses  in  Acts  xxviii :  25:  "Well  spake 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc.     And  this  word   is  rendered  by 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  133 

speak,  or  its  equivalent,  in  the  common  version  at  least 
three  hundred  times. 

I  will  pursue  Mr.  Lard's  translation  no  further.  But 
I  must  pay  some  attention  to  some  remarks  he  has 
interspersed  while  progressing  with  it.  He  represents 
Jesus  as  saying  to  Nicodemus :  "  I  have  told  you  what 
it  (the  Spirit)  does  which  you  may  understand ;  but  of 
the  Spirit  itself,  you  must  remain  in  other  respects  igno- 
rant until  I  am  glorified,  then  it  will  be  given  ;  when 
you  will  have  no  difficulty  in  understanding  what  it  is 
not  proper  I  should  at  present  make  known  to  you." 

In  reply  to  this  quotation,  I  wish  to  say  : 

1.  It  is  strange  that  the  Savior  should  use  the  pro- 
noun it  to  represent  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  conversa- 
tion with  Nicodemus,  when  everywhere  else,  and  on  all 
other  occasions,  he  uses  the  pronoun  lie! 

2.  It  is  difficult  for  me  to  understand  how  the  igno- 
rance of  Nicodemus  could  have  respect  to  the  Spirit 
himself — from  whence  he  came,  etc. — v,'hen  the  writings 
of  Moses  and  of  the  prophets  are  full  of  his  name  and 
operations.  In  the  very  dawn  of  Revelation  we  read : 
"And  the  vSpirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters." — Gen.  i:  2.  In  another  place  we  read:  "By  his 
Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens." — Job.  xxvi :  13. 
The  prophet  Isaiah  asks :  "Who  hath  directed  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord?" — si:  13.  (Compare  Isa.  lix :  21.)  It 
seems  to  me  impossible  that  Nicodemus  could  have  been 
ignorant  of  from  whence  the  Spirit  of  God  came.  From 
whence  can  God's  Spirit  come  but  from  God  himself? 

3.  It  is  evident  from  the  context  that  the  ignorance 
of  Nicodemus  had  respect,  not  to  the  Spirit,  but  to  the 
new  birth  hij  the  Spirit.  This  is  plain  from  the  fourth 
verse:  "How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old?"  etc. 
All  that  follows  up  to  the  ninth  verse,  (including,  there- 


]34  AN    EXA31INATI0N    OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

fore,  the  eighth,)  is  an  answer  to  this  question.  And  I 
must  confess,  that  it  requires  more  ingenuity  than  I 
possess,  to  see  how  this  question  can  be  answered  by 
telling  the  questioner  he  knows  not  whence  the  Spirit 
comes  or  goes  ! 

4.  If  the  Spirit  did  not  speak  until  after  Jesus  was 
glorified,  is  it  not  strange  that  Peter  said  that  the  Holy 
Grhost  spake  by  David?  (Acts  iv :  IG.)  And  that  Paul 
should  say,  he  spake  by  Isaiah?  (Acts  xxviii :  25.)  Is 
it  not  also  strange  that  the  Savior  should  use  the  present 
tense :  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou 
hearest  the  sound  thereof."  Now,  according  to  Mr.  Lard, 
the  Spirit  had  not  yet  breathed  or  spoken.  Then  how 
is  it  that  Nicodemus  heard  his  sound — his  voice  ?  If 
all  that  the  Savior  said  to  Nicodemus  was  prophetical — 
if  everything  spoken  of  was  in  anticipation,  no  wonder 
he  marveled. 

5.  It  is  a  strange  thing  that  Jesus  reproved  Nicode- 
mus on  account  of  his  ignorance  :  "Art  thou  not  a  mas- 
ter of  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these  things?" — John 
iii :  10.  But  stop :  has  not  Mr.  Lard  said  that  Jesus 
told  Nicodemus  that  he  was  not  only  ignorant,  but 
"must  remain  ignorant  until  he  was  glorified?"  Yes; 
but  Mr.  Lard  can  sometimes  commit  mistakes.  I  had 
rather  believe  the  record. 

§10. 
Mr.  Lard  words  his  tenth  argument  thus  : 
"  Ou7-  tenth  argument  is,  that  conciction  of  the  sinner, 
which  is  pec%diarlij  the  ivork  of  th.e  Spirit,  and  which  may 
he  considered  as  hut  another  name  for  conversion,  in  the 
view  we  are  now  talcing  of  it,  can  he  effected  in  no  way 
hnown  to  the  human  mind  excejil  hy  the  truth.'^ 

If  Mr.  Lard  means  to  say  the  Spirit  convicts  by  means 
of  the  truth,  I  admit  it.     The  words  of  his  argument 


Jeter's  oampbellisji  exposed.  135 

would  indicate  this  as  his  meaning.  But  I  apprehend 
before  he  is  done  amplifying  the  argument,  this  seeming 
meaning  will  be  denied.     Let  us  hear  him  further  : 

"As  a  partial  basis  for  this  argument,  we  cite  the  fol- 
lowing Scriptures:  'Nevertheless,  I  tell  you  the  truth: 
It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not 
away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  to  you;  but  if  I  de- 
part, I  will  send  him  unto  you.  And  when  he  is  come, 
he  will  reprove  (convince  it  should  have  been)  the  world 
of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment.'  Again  :  'If 
ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments.  And  I  will  pray 
the  Father,  and  he  will  give  you  another  Comforter,  that 
he  may  abide  with  you  forever;  even  the  Spirit  of  truth; 
whom  the  world  can  not  receive^  because  it  seeth  him 
not,  neither  knoweth  him.' — John  xvi :  7,  8;  xiv:  17. 
From  these  Scriptures  it  is  clear,  first,  that  to  convince 
the  world  is  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Spirit."  Agreed. 
"  From  this  work  wc  may  add,  it  [why  did  not  Mr.  Lard 
say  he?  Did  he  notice  the  quotations  he  had  just 
made?]  has  never  been  absent  a  moment,  from  the  day 
on  which  it  (he)  descended  to  commence  it,  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  to  the  present."  Agreed  again,  with  one 
esception.  The  Spirit  did  not  descend  at  Pentecost  to 
"commence"  the  work  of  conviction.  Conviction  was 
always  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 

Mr.  Lard  continues:  "Indeed,  the  work  of  conviction 
seems  to  be  as  peculiarly  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  as  ex- 
piation was  of  the  Son;  nor  can  we  any  more  conceive 
of  the  Spirit  as  now  absent  from  its  (his)  work,  than 
of  the  Son  when  he  accomplished  his."  I  say  again, 
agreed.  But  now  follows  some  strange  things.  Mr, 
Lard  tells  us,  "  There  are  some  curious  illustrations  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  the  fact  that  conviction  is 
the  special  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  also  of  that  singular 


136  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARd's    REVIEW    OP 

sentence,  '  The  Spirit  breathes  where  it  sees  fit.'  We," 
says  he,  "cite  the  following:  'The  Spirit  said  to  Philip, 
Gro  near  and  join  thyself  to  this  chariot.'  Again,  the 
Holy  Ghost  said :  '  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for 
the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them.'  And  again  : 
'Now  when  they  had  gone  through  Phrygia,  and  the 
region  of  Galatia,  and  were  forbidden  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  preach  the  word  in  Asia,  after  they  were  come  to 
Mysia,  they  essayed  to  go  into  Bithynia;  but  the  Spirit 
suffered  them  not.'" 

Are  these  "illustrations"  of  the  fact  that  conviction 
is  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Spirit?  They  are  "curious 
illustrations  !  "  They  are  rather  illustrations  of  the  fact 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  guided  the  first  preachers  of  the 
Gospel,  inspiring  them  to  preach,  choosing  their  fields  of 
labor,  and  giving  them  success.     But  go  on,  Mr.  Lard : 

"  From  these  extracts,  it  seems  evident — 1st.  That  in 
carrying  On  the  work  of  conviction,  the  Spirit  wrought 
only  through  the  apostles  and  other  ministers  of  the 
word  whom  it  (he)  inspired."  Why,  my  dear  sir,  how 
does  this  seem  evident  from  these  extracts,  when  they 
say  not  one  word  about  how  the  Spirit  works  in  con- 
viction? But  go  on.  "2d.  That  if  it  (he)  had  not  the 
entire  control  of  their  labors  in  this  work,  it,  at  least, 
had  the  chief  control  of  them.  3d.  That  the  Spirit 
breathed,  or  made  known  the  truth,  not  unconditionally 
everywhere,  but  only  when  it  (he)  saw  that  the  truth 
would  be  received." 

Well,  sir,  I  have  no  particular  objection  to  your 
second  statement,  but  I  can  not  agree  with  your  third. 
In  the  first  place,  I  see  you  mean  when  you  say  the 
Spirit  breathed,  or  made  known  the  truth,  simply  that 
he  inspired  the  apostles  and  other  ministers,  and  they, 
not  he,  made  it  known. 


JKTEIl's    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  137 

2.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  allow  the  apostles  to  go 
"  everywhere,"  he  interfered  with  their  obedience  to  the 
last  great  command  of  the  Savior:  "Go  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature."  And 
he  should  not  have  allowed  Paul  to  make  such  a  blunder 
as  he  did  at  Athens,  when  he  said,  "God  now  command- 
eth  all  men  everywhere  to  repent."  Nor  should  he  have 
allowed  Mark  to  say:  "And  they  went  forth  and  preached 
everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them." 

3.  If  his  intention  was  to  send  the  apostles  and  other 
ministers  only  where  he  "  saw  the  truth  would  be  re- 
ceived," he  was  not  always  successful :  for  he  sometimes 
sent  them  where  the  truth  was  not  received.  How  came 
he  to  move  Stephen  to  preach  to  that  mised  multitude, 
who,  instead  of  receiving  the  truth,  "  gnashed  upon  him 
with  their  teeth,"  and  murdered  him  with  stones  !  No ; 
the  truth  is,  the  Holy  Spirit  moved  the  primitive  min- 
isters to  preach  as  the  Savior  had  commanded — "Repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  among  all  nations,  beginning 
at  Jerusalem."  Hence  at  Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  Paul  went 
into  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews  and  preached,  in  sub- 
stance, the  very  same  sermon  preached  by  Peter  at  Pen- 
tecost. But  it  did  not  have  the  same  eifect.  His  hearers, 
instead  of  asking,  "What  must  we  do?"  judged  them- 
selves "  unworthy  of  everlasting  life."  Mr.  Lard,  did 
the  Holy  Spirit  commit  a  blunder  here?  or  was  he  at 
this  time  absent  from  his  work  ?  or  did  Paul  "  run  be- 
fore he  was  sent?"  So  when  Paul  went  to  Rome,  he 
"called  the  chief  of  the  Jews  together,"  and  gave  them 
a  brief  account  of  the  manner  of  his  imprisonment,  and 
the  ground  of  it :  "  For  the  hope  of  Israel  am  I  bound 
with  this  chain."  This  led  many  to  desire  to  hear  more 
from  him.  "And  when  they  had  appointed  him  a  day, 
there  came  many  to  him  in  his  lodging:    to  whom  he 


138  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

expounded  and  testified  the  kingdom  of  Grod,  persuading 
them  concerning  Jesus,  both  out  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  out  of  the  prophets,  from  morning  until  evening." 
But  did  they  receive  the  truth  ?  Nay,  verily.  Some 
believed,  but  they  went  away  with  the  unrelenting  mul- 
titude, with  gross  hearts,  dull  ears,  and  closed  eyes ! 
How  was  this,  Mr.  Lard?  Do  you  not,  by  this  time, 
think  that  you  committed  a  mistake,  when  you  said,  "The 
Spirit  breathed,  or  made  known  the  truth,  not  uncondi- 
tionally, everywhere,  but  only  when  it  (he)  saw  fit  to 
make  it  known — when,  in  other  words,  it  (he)  saw  that 
the  truth  would  be  received  ?  " 

"But,"  perhaps  you  will  say,  ''does  not  Luke  tell  us 
that  Paul  and  Silas  were  forbidden  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
preach  the  word  in  Asia?  And  that  he*  did  not  suffer 
them  to  go  into  Bithynia?"  Yes,  sir;  Luke  says  that. 
But  let  me  ask  you  if  all  other  ministers  were  alike 
prohibited  from  preaching  in  these  places?  If  so,  who 
planted  the  seven  Churches  in  Asia?  And  who  became 
instrumental  in  the  conversion  of  the  "  strangers  scat- 
tered throughout  Bithynia?" — 1  Peter  i:  1. 

Let  us  hear  Mr.  Lard  further:  "But  it  is  clear,  2nd. 
That  the  world — %.  c,  the  unconverted  part  of  it,  or  sin- 
ners— can  not  receive  the  Spirit;  that  is,  that  the  Spirit 
can  not  enter  into  sinners;  for  that  is  what  is  meant  by 
receiving  the  Spirit." 

Is  that  what  is  meant  by  receiving  the  Spirit?  Does 
the  English  word  "receive"  ever  mean  "enter  into?" 
Does  the  original  word  ever  mean  "enter  into?"  Never. 
It  occurs  in  the  Greek  New  Testament  about  two  hun- 


*Mr.  Lard  must  pardon  me  for  putting  the  pronoun  he  for 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  mouth;  I  can  not  use  it  only  when  I 
quote  him. 


JETER  S   CAMPBELLIS3I    EXPOSED.  139 

dred  and  sixty  times.  But  it  never  has  this  sense  in  a 
single  instance.  And  I  ask,  why  should  lamhano  have 
the  meaning  of  "entered  into"  when  used  with  respect  to 
the  Spirit,  any  more  than  when  used  with  respect  to  Jesus 
Christ?  Of  him  we  read:  "He  came  to  his  own,  and  his 
own  received  him  not;  but  as  many  as  received  him,  to 
them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God."  Does 
this  mean  "  his  own  did  not  receive  him,"  t.  e.,  he  did 
not  "enter  into"  them.  "But  as  many  as  received 
him,"  ^.  e.,  as  many  as  he  "entered  into,"  to  them  gave 
he  power,  etc.?  The  incongruity  of  the  idea  will,  I  have 
no  doubt,  strike  all  minds.  Well,  in  both  passages  the 
Greek,  as  well  as  the  English,  is  the  same.  How  any 
man  of  Mr.  Lard's  pretensions  could  venture  to  say,  to 
receive  means  to  enter  into,  I  can  not  divine. 

The  word  receive  implies  voluntariness,  choice,  sub- 
mission. He  who  receives  Jesus  Christ,  voluntarily 
submits  to  his  guidance  and  authority  :  so  he  who  re- 
ceives the  Holy  Spirit,  voluntarily  submits  to  his  guid- 
ance and  influence,  as  the  Comforter  of  God's  people. 
But  this  submission  implies  a  previous  work.  A  work 
which  changes  the  will,  subdues  the  rebellious  disposi- 
tion of  the  heart,  and  conciliates  its  affections.  Will 
Mr.  Lard  say  the  Spirit  has  no  hand  in  this  previous 
work? 

Whether  the  Spirit  "  enters  into"  the  sinner  or  not, 
when  he  reproves  him  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of 
judgment,  I  pretend  not  to  say.  I  am  content  with  the 
fact  that  he  reproves.  The  Savior  says  he  does  "  re- 
prove (convince  or  convert,  if  you  prefer)  the  world 
of  sin,"  etc.,  but  he  says  not  a  word  about  how  he  does 
it.  When  Mr.  Lard  says  he  does  it  "through  his  min- 
isters, and  in  no  other  way,"  he  speaks  the  language  of 


140  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

his  creed,  not  of  his  text.  For  on  the  subject  of  how 
he  reproves,  the  text  says  nothing. 

Besides,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  convinced  the  world  of  sin, 
of  righteousness,  etc.,  in  no  other  way  than  by  speak- 
ing through  the  apostles  and  other  ministers,  there  was 
nothing  peculiar  in  his  work:  for  in  like  manner  did  he 
convince  the  world  of  sin  under  the  former  dispensation. 
David  says:  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  sjmke  hy  me,  and 
his  word  was  in  my  tongue." — 2  Sam.  xxiii:  2.  So  Ne- 
hemiah  says  :  "  Thou  gavest  also  thy  good  Spirit  to  in- 
struct them,  and  withheldest  not  thy  manna  from  their 
mouth,  and  gavest  them  water  for  their  thirst." — Neh. 
ix:  20.  Again  :  "  Thou  testifiedst  against  them,  that  thou 
mightest  bring  them  again  to  thy  law.  -^  ^-  *  Yet 
many  years  didst  thou  forbear  them,  and  testifiedst 
against  them  by  thy  Spirit  in  thy  prophets." — Neh.  ix: 
29,  30.  (Compare  2  Kings  xvii :  13  ;  2  Chron.  xxxvi:  15, 
16;  Jer.  vii :  25;  xxv :  4.)  Finally,  the  apostle  Peter 
covers  the  whole  ground  by  saying,  "  Holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost," — 2  Peter  i:  21. 

We  shall  labor  this  point  no  further  for  the  present. 
Let  us  follow  Mr.  Lard  further  in  his  argument.  Mr. 
Lard  asks:  "But  what  is  conviction?"  and  then  answers 
his  own  question  with  emphasis,  thus:  "A  firm  persua- 
sion that  something  said  or  conceived  of  is  true."  Here, 
reader,  note  Mr.  Lard's  divergence  from  the  point  in  the 
text,  namely,  the  Savior  specifics  the  things  of  which 
the  Spirit  shall  convince  (or  convict)  the  world,  to  wit : 
"Of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  And  he 
then  goes  on  to  say  why  he  shall  convict  the  world  of 
these  things.  This  being  so,  there  is  a  want  of  rele- 
vancy in  Mr.  Lard's  answer.  Conviction  with  respect  to 
Bin,  must  consist  in  arousinc;  or  bejrettine;  in  the  soul  a 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed,  141 

sense  of  guilt.  Hence  the  fitness  of  the  Savior's  rea- 
son :  ''  He  shall  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  because  they 
believe  not  on  me."  He  shall  make  them  feel  the  guilt 
of  unbelief  with  respect  to  Jesus  Christ. 

Mr.  Lard,  after  giving  us  his  definition  of  conviction, 
goes  on  to  identify  it  with  belief.  It  is,  according  to 
him,  "in  nothing  distinguishable  from  belief."  This 
statement  is,  in  my  estimation,  contradicted  by  facts. 
Conviction  has  respect  to  ourselves.  Belief,  or  faith, 
has  respect  to  Jesus  Christ.  We  are  convicted  of  sin 
for  unbelief,  or  want  of  faith ;  then  how  can  this  con- 
viction be  identical  with  faith  ?  The  Jews  at  Pente- 
cost "were  pricked  in  the  heart."  This  was  conviction. 
Afterward  "  they  gladly  received  the  word."  This  was 
faith.  Conviction  and  faith,  then,  are  two  distinct  things, 
and  they  never  should  be  confounded. 

After  identifying  conviction  and  faith,  Mr.  Lard  says  : 
"Now,  in  order  to  produce  conviction,  two  things,  and 
only  two,  are  necessary,  so  far  as  the  mere  object  and 
means  of  conviction  are  concerned,  to  wit:  the  thing  of 
which  we  are  to  be  convinced,  and  evidence  in  amount 
and  kind  sufiicient  to  sustain  it."  And  he  maintains 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  given  us  the  proposition,  "that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  and  also 
the  evidence  in  the  divine  record  to  sustain  it.  "Here 
now,"  says  he,  "  the  Spirit  has  furnished,  not  only  the 
thing  of  which  we  are  to  be  convinced,  but  the  evidence 
in  quantity  and  kind  on  which  it  rests." 

Here,  reader,  note  particularly  how  far  Mr.  Lard  has 
wandered  from  the  point  in  his  proof-text.  However 
true  it  may  be  that  we  are  indebted  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
for  the  proposition  that  "  Jesus  is  the  Christ,"  and  for 
the  evidences  on  which  it  rests,  it  is  not  of  this  prop- 
osition  that    Jesus   says   the  Spirit   shall  convince    the 


142  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's  REVIEW   OF 

world.  He  is  to  convince  the  world,  not  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  but  "of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment." 

But  let  us  hear  Mr.  Lard  still  further  :  "Now,  on  our 
part,  this  thing  and  this  evidence  must  be  voluntarily 
attended  to;  and  if  so,  conviction  will  as  inevitably  fol- 
low, unless  deliberately  resisted,  as  pain  follows  vice,  or 
pleasure  follows  virtue.  If  conviction  is  not  thus  pro- 
duced, it  is  a  dream." 

To  this  I  answer,  then  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
producing  conviction  was  finished  upward  of  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago ;  for  he  then  gave  the  world  the  prop- 
osition to  be  believed,  and  the  evidence  in  quantity  and 
in  kind  on  which  it  rests.  And  now,  unless  Mr.  Lard 
will  admit  that  the  Spirit  has  something  to  do  in  secur- 
ing this  "  voluntary  attention"  to  the  proposition  and 
evidence,  he  must  deny  his  present  agency  in  the  work 
of  conviction.  But  this  he  can  not  admit,  for  elsewhere 
he  has  denied  it.  But  let  the  reader  remember  that  in 
denying  it,  Mr.  Lard  destroys  his  own  proposition,  that 
the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion. 

I  can  not  refrain  from  quoting  the  last  paragraph  of 
Mr.  Lard's,  in  this  argument.  It  is  this :  "  Since,  there- 
fore, conviction  depends  on  the  truth,  proved  to  be  such, 
and,  as  far  as  the  human  mind  can  see,  on  nothing  else, 
and  since  conviction  (in  the  view  we  are  now  taking  of 
it)  and  conversion  are-  the  same,  it  follows  that  conver- 
sion depends  on  the  truth,  and  on  the  trnth  alone. 

Reader,  do  you  not  wonder  how  Mr.  Lard  could  thus 
write,  after  wording  his  proposition  as  he  has?  Should 
he  not  blush  either  at  his  proposition  or  at  his  argu- 
ment? 0,  that  I  could  speak  so  loud  as  to  be  heard  by 
all  the  world — the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  operate  in 

CONVERSION,  if  CONVERSION  DEPENDS  ON  THE  TRUTH 
ALONE  I 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  143 

§  11- 

Mr.  Lard  states  his  eleventh  argument  thus  : 

"  Our  eleventh  argument  is,  that  there  is  no  cause  hnown 
to  have  contributed  to  the  conversion  of  the  three  thousand 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  excejH  the  truth  ivhich  they  heard; 
and  that  it  is  hence  unjust  and  unfair  to  infer  the  presence 
of  any  other." 

Now,  reader,  can  you  see  how  that  argument  proves 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  ?  Can  you 
see  agreement  between  it  and  what  Mr.  Lard  says  under 
his  seventh  argument,  viz.:  "This  system  (the  Camp- 
bellite  system)  conceives  it  (the  Holy  Spirit)  to  be  ever 
present  in  conversion."  Remember,  he  says  three  thou- 
sand were  converted  at  Pentecost.  In  every  such  case, 
he  tells  us  under  his  seventh  argument,  the  Holy  Sp'irit 
is  ever  present.  Yet  in  these  three  thousand  cases,  he 
now  tells  us,  no  cause  except  the  truth  is  known  to  have 
contributed  to  them,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  "unjust 
and  unfair  to  infer  the  presence  of  any  other!" 

Is  there  not  here  a  plain  contradiction?  If  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  always  present  in  a  case  of  conversion,  was  he 
not  present  here  ?  Then  how  is  it  not  known  that  any 
other  cause  except  the  truth  was  present  in  these  cases 
of  conversion?  Is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  one  cause?  Is 
not  the  truth  another?  If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  ever  pres- 
ent, and  the  truth  ever  present,  are  not  two  causes  ever 
present?  I  can  not  conceive  how  Mr.  Lard  could  assert 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  conversion — that  he  is 
ever  present  in  it,  and  afterward  say  it  is  unjust  and 
unfair  to  infer  his  presence  !  ! 

It  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  follow  Mr.  Lard 
through  his  amplification  of  this,  his  eleventh  argument. 
In  it,  he  does  little  more  than  describe  the  scenes  which 
transpired  at  Pentecost.     They  are  better  described  in 


144  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW    OP 

the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts;  and  all  can  examine 
that  for  themselves.  I  shall,  therefore,  pass  to  Mr.  Lard's 
concluding  remarks. 

He  asks,  "  To  what,  now,  is  this  conviction  attributa- 
ble? To  what  the  audience  heard  simply?  or  to  what 
they  heard,  and  to  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above 
the  truth?  The  latter  is  Mr.  Jeter's  position,  the  foriBer 
ours." 

To  this  I  reply,  if  the  former  is  Mr.  Lard's  position, 
he  has  been  unfortunate  in  wording  it.  Instead  of  read- 
ing, "■  The  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  through 
the  truth,"  it  should  have  read,  "  The  (ruth  only  operates 
in  conversion." 

Mr.  Lard  quotes:  "When  they  heard  this,  they  were 
pricked  in  the  heart,"  and  then  asks,  "  What,  in  rea- 
son's name  pierced  them,  save  the  truth  which  they 
heard?"  I  answer  by  asking,  what  caused  the  truth  to 
pierce  them?  Was  it  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  converts 
by  means  of  the  truth  ?  This  is  our  position.  Here  is 
a  man  pierced  by  a  sword.  If  I  asked  ivhat  pierced 
him?  the  answer,  I  presume,  would  be,  "A  sword."  But 
if  I  should  ask,  Who  pierced  him  ?  I  presume,  the  an- 
swer would  hardly  be  the  same.  So  we  would  answer 
in  regard  to  the  conversions  at  Pentecost.  The  "  what" 
refers  to  the  word;  the  "  who"  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Mr.  Lard  closes  this  argument  by  saying,  "We  believe 
the  eflfeet  was  due  to  one  known  cause,  the  truth  which 
God  puts  into  requisition  to  produce  it;  and  all  beyond 
we  gladly  leave  to  that  pliant  credulity  which  can  be- 
lieve without  evidence,  and  to  that  enviable  penetration 
which  can  detect  the  presence  of  a  cause,  where  no  cause 
exists." 

I  reply  by  saying,  we  believe  *'  the  effect  was  due"  to 
two  causes  :  the  acknowledged  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  the  truth,  which  he  employs  to  produce  it.     And  all 


JETER'S   CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED,  145 

that  stop  this  side  of  this,  we  leave  to  that  cold  "  Ration- 
alism" whi-ch  excludes  the  Holy  Spirit  from  conversion, 
his  chief  and  peculiar  work,  and  to  that  singular  infat- 
uation which  has  caused  Mr.  Lard  to  acknowledge  in  his 
proposition  that  "  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  conver- 
sion," and  then  in  his  argument  to  deny  it. 

§  12. 

Mr.  Lard  states  his  twelfth  argument  thus  : 

"  Tlie  conversion  of  the  eunuch  justifies  the  belief  in  no 
other  influence  as  the  cause  of  his  conversion,  accept  the 
truth  which  he  heard." 

Then,  of  course,  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  the  cause  of 
the  eunuch's  conversion  ! 

But  stop.  Mr.  Lard  after  a  while  says:  "To  what 
conclusion  does  it  [the  history  of  the  eunuch's  con- 
version] lead?  Clearly  to  the  following:  1.  That  the 
Spirit  operated  on  the  eunuch.  2.  That  it  (he)  operated 
through  the  truth.  3.  That  it  (he)  operated  in  no  other 
way;  since  no  other  way  is  either  named  or  hinted  at." 

Well,  does  not  that  seem  correct?  Yes,  reader,  but 
I  object  to  it  because  it  conceals  one  fact  in  Mr.  Lard's 
theory,  i.  e.,  the  Spirit  did  not  operate  on  the  eunuch 
at  all!  He  only  furnished  Philip  with  the  message  he 
delivered  to  him.  It  was  what  Philip  said  that  converted 
him.  The  Holy  Spirit  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  word 
after  it  left  Philip's  lips.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  eunuch's  heart,  or  will,  in  receiving  the  message  of 
Philip.  He  was  the  cans'!,  of  the  eunuch's  conversion, 
in  no  sense  implying  anything  more  than  that  he  in- 
spired Philip  to  speak  to  him  !  He  converted  the  eunuch 
as  Jesus  baptized  his  disciple-s — by  proxy. — John  iv  :  1, 
2.  Jesus  made  and  baptized  disciples,  i.  e..  his  disciples 
did  it  for  him  and  by  his  authority;  so,  according  to  Mr. 
Lard,  the  Holy  Spirit  converted  the  eunuch ;  i.  e.,  he  did 


146  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARd's   REVIEW    OP 

not  convert  liim  at  all,  but  Philip  did  it  under  his  direc- 
tion ! 

That  I  do  not  here  misrepresent  Mr.  Lard,  the  follow- 
ing quotation  will  show:  "  The  Spirit,  then,  was  present 
hut  in  Philip,  and  not  in  the  eunuch ;  for  the  world  can 
not  receive  it  (him  :)  it  (he)  had  spoken  but  to  Philip, 
and  not  to  the  eunuch.  Now,  however,  it  (he)  was  speak- 
ing to  the  eunuch,  but  speaking  only  through  Philip  ; 
and  so  it  (he)  continued  till  conviction  was  effected.  All, 
then,  that  was  said  to  the  eunuch,  the  Spirit  said,  but 
said  it  through  Philip  ;  all  that  the  eunuch  learned,  he 
learned  from  the  Spirit,  but  he  learned  it  through  Philip; 
and  all  that  the  eunuch  felt,  the  Spirit  caused  him  to 
feel,  but  by  what  it  (he)  said.  And  this  is  a  case  of  con- 
version." 

I  have,  I  think,  already  shown  in  §  3,  chapter  1,  that 
the  eunuch  was  not  at  this  time  converted.  IMy  opinion 
is,  he  was  a  pious,  God-fearing  man  before.  All  the 
facts  in  the  history  warrant  this  opinion.  Read  atten- 
tively what  is  said  of  him  in  Acts  viii.  1.  He  came 
to  Jerusalem  (o  ivonhij-).  2.  As  he  was  returning,  he 
was  attentively  reading  Isaiah  the  prophet.  3.  He  was 
anxious  to  be  religiously  instructed.  4.  He  heard  Philip 
calmly.  5.  He  showed  no  signs  of  a  disturbed  convicted 
spirit.  6.  He  asked  no  such  question  as  convicted  sin- 
ners are  wont  to  ask,  viz.:  "What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved?"  He  simply  demanded  baptism  in  the  name  of 
that  Jesus  whom  Philip  had  just  preached  to  him. 

All  this  shows  to  me  that  the  eunuch  was  a  religious 
proselyte — a  Jew  inwardly — (Rom.  ii :  29,)  an  expectant 
of  the  Messiah.  I  classify  him  with  Nathaniel,  (John 
i:  47-49,)  and  Apollos,  (Acts  xviii :  24-28.)  All  these 
were  converted — changed  in  heart — before  they  knew 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah.     And  all  of 


JETEll'S   CAilPEELLLSM    EXPOSED.  147 

them  embraced  him  us  soon  as  he  was  made  known  to 
them.  Tlie  eunuch  believed  in  the  Messiah,  waited  for 
his  nianitestation,  and  his  heart  being  right,  all  that  he 
needed  was  suitable  and  more  perfect  instruction.  This 
he  received  from  Philip.  It  turns  out.  therefore,  that 
Mr.  Lard's  twelfth  argument  is  built  upon  a  mistaken 
case  of  conversion,  and  is  worth  nothing,,  save  only  to 
show  how  Mr.  Lard  can  argue  against  his  own  "propo- 
sition." 

Mr.  Lard  winds  up  this  argument  by  asking:  "But 
where  is  the  evidence  that  the  Spirit  exerted  on  the 
eunuch  an  'influence  distinct  from  and  abov&the  truth?' 
In  what  fact,  hint,  or  circumstance,  in  the  case  itself, 
shall  we  look  for  it?  That  evidence  does  not  exist.  The 
persuasion  that  it  does,  is  a  distempered  dream.'.' 

In  reply,  I  would  ask,  may  we  not  know  a  tree  by  its 
fruits?     May  we  not  know  a  fountain  by  its  stream? 

Did  not  the  eunuch  exhibit  some  of  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit?  But  could  he  do  this  without  the  Spirit  him- 
self? "  In  what  fact,  hint,  or  circumstance,  in  the  case 
itself,  can  we  look  for  the  fruits"  of  the  Spirit  where  he 
exerts  no  influence?  "The  persuasion  that"  any  of  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit  can  exist  without  the  Spirit  himself, 
"is  a  distempered  dream." 

§13. 

Mr.  Lard  states  his  thirteenth  argument  thus. 

^'■Our  thirteenth  argument  is,  that  the  apostle  Paul  rep- 
resents himself  as  having  begotten,  or  converted,  the  Cor- 
inthians hy  the  Gospel;  and  that,  since  the  Gospel  in  its 
ordinary  acceptation  does  not  include  an  influence  distinct 
from  and  above  itself,  therefore,  the  Gospel  is  the  sole  in- 
fluence of  conversion." 

He  adds  :  "  The  ground  on  which  this  argument  rests 


148  AN  EXAMINATION  OF  LARD's  REVIEW  OP 

is  the  following:  'Though  you  have  tea  thousand  in- 
structors in  Christ,  yet  have  you  not  many  fathers;  for 
in  Christ  Jesus  I  have  begotten  you,  through  the  Gos- 
pel.'"—! Cor.  iv:  15. 

Now,  I  ask,  does  this  language  of  the  apostle's  sus- 
tain the  argument?  Does  it  follow  that  because  Paul 
said,  "I  have  begotten  you  through  the  Gosjjel,"  "the 
Gospel  is  the  sole  influence  of  conversion?"  "Abraham 
hegat  Isaac,"  (Matt,  i:  2,)  but  does  that  exclude  the 
Spirit  of  God  from  any  agency  in  his  birth?  Without 
a  Divine  interposition,  Isaac  never  would  have  been 
born.  God  quickened  the  womb  of  Sarah,  and  gave  it 
power  of  conception.  So  God  quickens  the  sinner. 
"  And  you  hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins." — Eph.  ii:  1.  The  natural  birth  of 
Isaac,  and  the  spiritual  birth  of  the  converted  man,  are 
analogous. — Gal.  i'w:  28,  29.  Now,  just  as  Abraham 
begat  Isaac  by  virtue  of  the  Divine  interposition  in  re- 
moving natural  impediments,  so  Paul  begat  the  Corin- 
thians, by  virtue  of  the  Divine  interposition  in  removing 
moral  impediments.  This  Mr.  Lard  may  not  be  willing 
to  acknowledge,  but  were  Paul  here,  how  forward  would 
he  be  to  acknowledge  it !  He  would,  I  have  no  doubt, 
with  a  holy  indignance  say  to  Mr.  Lard  :  "  Have  you 
not  read  where  I  have  said,  '  I  planted,  but  God  gave 
the  increase?'  And,  again,  '  So  neither  is  he  that  plant- 
eth  anything,  =i^  *  '-^  but  God  that  giveth  the  in- 
crease.' He  is  everything.  Do  you  not  know  that  my 
language,  which  you  represent  as  teaching  a  sentiment 
incongruous  with  these  statements,  was  used  by  me,  not 
to  teach  that  '  the  Gospel  is  the  sole  influence  of  con- 
version,' but  to  strengthen  my  authority  and  influence 
among  the  Corinthians,  who  had  become  somewhat  dis- 
aff'ected  toward  me,  and  refractory  and  disorderly?     As 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  149 

God  had  made  me  the  honored  instrument  in  planting 
the  seeds  of  Divine  truth  among  them,  and  in  their 
conversion  from  heathenism  to  Christianity,  I  could 
claim,  in  that  sense,  to  be  i\iQix  father  ;  while  others,  to 
whom  they  were  inclined  to  listen  and  to  give  the  pref- 
erence, were  simply  their  instructors.  Forbear,  Mr.  Lard, 
to  quote  what  I  have  here  said  against  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion.  I  owe  my  success  to 
him.  I  was  a  mere  'earthen  vessel.'  'The  excellency 
of  the  power  was  of  God.'  My  'sufficiency  was  of  him.'" 
— 2  Cor.  iii:  5. 

As  I  want  the  reader  and  the  world  to  know  precisely 
what  is  the  Campbellite  view  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  conversion,  and  as  Mr.  Lard  sets  it  forth  very 
clearly  under  this  argument,  I  will  quote  all  he  says 
here  on  this  point : 

"  In  examining  different  cases  of  conversion,  since 
conversion  is  in  all  cases  the  same,  the  trait  with  which 
we  should  expect  to  be  most  struck,  would  be  their  sub- 
stantial argument  amid  different  circumstances.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  curious  to  note  that  in  every  case  of 
conversion,  no  matter  what  the  surrounding  circum- 
stances may  have  been,  the  first  thing  done  was  the  pres- 
entation of  the  truth:  that  this  was  presented  by  the 
Spirit  through  some  inspired  teacher,  and  confirmed; 
that  this  truth  was  then  represented  as  being  heard,  be- 
lieved, received,  or  rejected ;  and  that  then  conversion 
ensued  or  not,  just  as  the  truth  was  received  or  rejected. 
But  in  no  case  have  we  the  slightest  evidence — not  even 
a  hint — that  the  Spirit  was  ever  at  work  in  any  other 
way,  or  by  any  other  means.  Is  it  not  strange  that  the 
truth,  if  truth  it  is,  should  never  be  flashed  out  in  a  single 
case?     The  circumstance  is  more  than  suspicious. 

"  Now,  what  the  word  spoken  was  to  the  people  then 


150  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

converted,  the  word  written  is  to  us  of  the  present  age. 
As  it  was  ^^e?2  the  sole  influence  of  conversion,  circum- 
stances providential  and  incidental  excepted,  so  it  is  now. 
As  the  Spirit  was  then  the  author  of  what  was  said,  and 
of  the  evidence  thereof,  and  hence  of  the  eifect  pro- 
duced, so  is  it  (he)  now  the  author  of  what  is  written, 
and  of  the  evidence  thereof,  and  hence  of  the  effect 
which  it  produces.  As  the  Spirit  was  then  present  when 
it  (he)  spoke,  so  is  it  (he)  now  present  when  it  (he) 
has  written  ;  and  as  what  it  (he)  then  said  was  quick 
and  powerful — in  a  word,  sj^irit  and  life — so  now  what 
it  (he)  has  written,  has  without  abatement  the  same 
subtile  energy.  And  as  then  he  who  resisted  the  truth 
resisted  the  Spirit,  so  it  is  now;  but  where  is  evidence — 
in  reason  we  ask  where — that  any  soul,  either  then  or 
now,  has  ever  resisted  the  Spirit  by  resisting  an  '  influ- 
ence distinct  from  and  above  the  truth  ? '  " 

Now,  reader,  examine  this  question  carefully,  and  see 
if  you  can  carefully  understand  it.  I  think  it  sufficiently 
explicit.  It  plainly  teaches  that  the  Spirit  is  in  no 
way  the  author  of  conversion,  except  that  he  is  the 
author  of  the  "truth"  which  converts.  He  has  simply 
furnished  the  "truth"  as  "spoken,"  or  "written,"  and 
confirmed  it  by  suitable  evidence,  and  now  he  docs  noth- 
ing more.  Then  all  the  agency  he  has  in  conversion, 
consists  in  that  of  being  the  author  of  the  "  truth  "  and 
its  evidences  employed  in  conversion.  Then  he  has 
done  nothing  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  for  the  last 
eighteen  hundred  years  !  And  he  never  will  do  any- 
thing more !  And  yet  Mr.  Lard's  "  proposition  "  is, 
"In  conversion  the-Holy  Spirit  operates!" 

§14. 

Mr.  Lard  states  his  fourteenth  and  last  argument  thus  : 
"0«r  fourteenth   and   I(ii<f   argument  is,    that   the   only 


JETEU'S   CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  151 

known  or  determinate  cause  of  Lydia^s  conversion,  was  the 
truth  which  she  heard;  and  that  this,  hence,  is  the  real 
cause  of  conversion y 

The  reader  can  turn  to  Acts  xvi:  14,  15,  and  see  at  a 
glance  all  that  is  said  about  Lydia's  conversion.  "And 
a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the 
city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshiped  God,  heard  us;  whose 
heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things 
which  were  spoken  by  Paul,"  etc.  The  facts,  then,  are 
these  : 

1.  Paul  and  Silas  spoke  unto  the  women  that  resorted 
to  the  place  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made. — V.  13. 

2.  A  certain  woman  named  Lydia  heard  and  attended 
to  the  things  that  were  spoken. 

3.  This  fact  is  ascribed  to  another  fact,  namely,  the 
Lord  opened  her  heart. 

Now,  those  other  women  heard,  but  they  did  not  at- 
tend to  what  they  heard.     Now,  why  did  they  not? 

In  Lydia's  case  Mr.  Lard  says:  "  It  is  clear,  1st.  That 
the  Spirit  was  present,  speaking  to  Lydia — speaking 
through  the  apostles  ;  2d.  That  she  heard  what  was  said; 
3d.  That  there  is  an  immense  motive  power  in  the  truth; 
4th.  But  not  one  particle  of  evidence  that  the  Spirit  was 
operating  on  Lydia  in  some  other  way  than  through  the 
truth,  or  exerting  more  power  than  is  in  the  truth.  To 
what  conclusion,  then,  are  we  forced?  To  the  conclu- 
sion simply,  that  the  Lord  influenced  her  to  obey  by 
the  light  and  motives  of  the  Grospel.' 

In  reply  I  ask,  is  it  not  equally  clear,  1st.  That  the 
Spirit  also  spake  through  the  apostles  to  the  other 
women?  2d.  That  they  also  heard  what  was  said?  3d. 
That  the  same  immense  motive  power  was  in  the  truth 
which  they  heard?  4th.  That  their  hearts  were  not 
opened  to  attend  to  what  they   heard?     Then  to  what 


152  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF    ' 

conclusion  are  we  forced?  Why,  if  Mr.  Lard  be  right, 
the  Lord  did  no  more  for  Lydia  than  he  did  for  those 
other  women,  and  that  there  is,  therefore,  no  meaning 
in  the  declaration  that  "  the  Lord  opened  her  heart." 
She  opened  it  herself.  He  who  can  receive  this,  let  him 
receive  it. 

I  have  now  finished  my  examination  of  Mr.  Lard's 
fourteen  arguments  in  support  of  his  proposition.  And 
I  think  I  have  shown  to  a  demonstration,  that  every 
one  of  the  fourteen  is  antagonistic  to  his  proposition. 
While  his  proposition  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit  oper- 
ates in  conversion,  his  arguments  all  go  to  show  that  he 
does  not. 

The  doctrine  taught  by  his  argument  is  : 

1.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author  of  the  proposition 
the  sinner  is  required  to  believe,  namely,  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God. 

2.  He  is  the  author  of  the  arguments  and  proofs  go- 
ing to  establish  this  proposition. 

3.  In  other  words,  he  has  furnished  the  truth  con- 
tained in  the  Divine  records. 

4.  That  in  this  truth,  because  it  is  furnished  by  him, 
there  exists  a  power  which  makes  it  effectual  in  the  work 
of  conversion. 

5.  Therefore  all  the  power  that  is  exerted  in  every 
case  of  conversion  is  now  resident  in  the  truth. 

And  now,  I  put  it  to  every  candid  mind,  if,  accord- 
ing to  this,  it  does  not  follow  as  a  vecessary  consequence, 
that  there  is  noio  no  influence  exerted  in  conversion  by 
the  Spirit?  When  the  last  line  of  Revelation  was  writ- 
ten, and  the  last  attestation  of  its  truth  was  given,  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  done.  His  work  was  then 
Si  finished  work  ;  and  now  the  truth  alone — the  truth  by 
itself — the  truth,  and  nothing  else,  "opera/cs," 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  15S 

I  have,  in  following  Mr.  Lard  through  his  fourteen 
arguments,  not  only  shown  that  they  are  antagonistic  to 
his  "proposition,"  but  also,  that  not  one  of  the  passages 
of.  Scripture  which  he  has  brought  forward,  justifies  or 
supports  the  argument  he  builds  upon  it.  Not  one  of 
them  asserts  that  conversion  depends  on  the  truth  alone. 
Not  one  of  them  denies  the  present  agency  or  injluence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion. 

Mr.  Lard,  after  giving  us  his  fourteen  arguments  in 
support  (!)  of  his  proposition,  gives  us  a  chapter  in 
which  he  considers  Mr.  Jeter's  objections  to  his,  or  the 
Campbellite  doctrine  on  this  subject,  and  though,  as  I 
have  already  said,  it  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  defend 
Mr.  Jeter,  I  must  give  some  attention  to  this  chapter 
before  I  proceed  to  argue  our  side  of  this  question.  I 
shall  simply  quote  Mr.  Jeter's  objections  as  quoted  by 
Mr.  Lard.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  defend  them  any 
further  than  it  becomes  necessary  in  noticing  what  Mr. 
Lard  says  in  his  attempt  to  meet  them.  If  the  reader 
wishes  to  become  fully  acquainted  with  Mr.  Jeter's  ob- 
jections, and  to  appreciate  their  force,  he  must  read  them 
as  stated  by  Mr.  Jeter  himself;  and  this  I  hope  he 
will  do. 


7* 


154  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  IN  CONVERSION. 
§  1. 

MR.  Lard,  in  proceeding  to  consider  Mr.  Jeter's  ob- 
jections to  his  doctrine,  undertakes  to  tell  us  the 
points  of  difference  between  himself  and  Mr.  Jeter.  He 
says  :  "  We  both  agree  that  in  conversion  the  Spirit 
operates y  ■  I  would  rejoice  if  Mr.  Lard  really  meant 
what  he  has  said  here.  He  does  not  believe  that  the 
Spirit  operates.  He  believes  that  the  truth  operates  he- 
cause  it  is  of  the  Spirit,  He  believes  that  the  j^oicer  by 
which  it  operates  is  now  in  it.  And  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
can  not  increase  this  power  without  infringing  the  free- 
dom of  the  human  will.  Let  the  reader  go  back  and 
re-examine  his  remarks,  as  quoted  in  §  1,  chapter  3  ; 
and  also  his  second  argument  under  the  head  of  §  2. 
His  words  are:  "And  we  shall  further  add,  that  neither 
in  quantity  nor  in  force,  do  we  conceive  that  this  influ- 
ence [of  the  truth]  can  be  increased  and  the  human  will 
be  left  free.'^  "An  influence  more  intense  than  that  of 
Divine  truth,  and  above  it,  would  of  necessity  infringe 
the  freedom  of  the  human  will,  and  hence  can  not  be 
admitted  to  be  present  in  conversion."  Now,  I  ask,  can 
the  man  who  wrote  the  above  sentence  believe  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  now  operates  in  conversion?  I  can  not 
think  that  he  does. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  155 

Mv.  Lard  says:  "When  he  (3Ir.  Jeter)  objects  to  our 
doctrine,  it  is  evident  that  he  objects  not  to  what  we  do 
teach,  but  in  reality  to  what  we  do  not  teach."  "\Ve 
object,  Mr.  Lard,  to  what  you  do  teach.  We  do  not 
object  to  your  "proposition,"  excepting  the  limitation 
found  in  the  word  "only."  But  you  teach  that  all  the 
converting  power  now  resides  in  the  truth.  To  this  we 
object.  We  hold  that  all  the  converting  power  resides 
now,  as  it  ever  has  done,  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  Meaning 
by  power,  effi.clency.  You  hold  that  no  influence  distinct 
from  the  truth,  is  exerted  in  conversion — that  the  only 
influence  exerted  in  conversion,  the  truth  alone  exerts. 
To  this  we  object.  We  maintain  that  all  the  power  that 
belongs  to  the  truth  is  of  an  instrumental  character. 
When  the  apostle  says,  "The  Gospel  is  ih.e power  of  God 
unto  salvation,"  he  uses  the  word  "power"  in  a  sense 
analogous  to  that  of  the  philosopher,  when  he  says,  the 
lever  is  the  power  of  the  mechanic ;  or  to  that  of  the 
warrior,  when  he  says,  the  sword  is  the  power  of  the 
soldier. 

You  say  we  object  to  what  you  do  not  teach  ?  I 
should  like  to  know  liow  that  is.  You  say  we  object  to 
your  "  limitation."  Well,  do  you  not  teach  the  limita- 
tion? Then,  how  is  it  that  we  object  to  what  you  do 
not  teach  ? 

Mr.  Lard  tells  us  what  he  expects  us  to  do  in  this 
controversy.  We  must  make  our  objection  to  this,  and 
we  must  prove  that !  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Jeter 
will  submit  to,  but  I  would  let  Mr.  Lard  know  that  I 
shall  shape  my  own  objections,  and  define  my  own  posi- 
tions, without  submitting  to  his  dictation  on  the  subject. 
I  will  not  allow  him  to  choose  my  camping-ground  and 
construct  my  batteries. 

After  these  preliminaries  Mr.  Lard  states  Mr.  Jetar'i 


156  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW   OF 

first  objection  thus  :  "  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  conver- 
sion overlooks;  or,  at  least,  under-estimates  the  inveteracy 
of  human  depravity/' 

Mr.  Lard  occupies  eight  pages  in  meeting  this  objec- 
tion. Pie  gives  us  a  pretty  clear  view  of  the  Campbell- 
ite  notion  of  human  depravity.  He  sometimes  seems 
to  admit  it,  and  sometimes  to  deny  it.  But  even  when 
he  seems  to  admit  it,  he  is  careful  to  admit  it  in  no  form 
or  sense,  "which  renders  the  sinner  incapable  of  conver- 
sion by  the  truth."     I  will  let  him  speak  for  himself: 

"  The  very  thing  which  we  utterly  deny  is,  that  any 
degree  or  form  of  depravity  exists  in  the  human  heart, 
which  renders  the  sinner  incapable  of  conversion  by  the 
truth." 

Again  he  says:  "There  are  two  forms  of  depravity, 
in  the  existence  of  which  we  do  not  believe  :  One,  a  form 
which  makes  it  necessary  to  regenerate  infants  in  order 
to  their  salvation  ;  the  other,  a  form  which  renders  an 
influence  distinct  from  and  above  the  trutli  necessary  to 
conversion.  And  should  it  be  said  that  depravity  exists 
in  these  two  forms  only,  then  we  are  prrpared  to  devy  the 
whole  thingy 

Well,  I  will,  I  think,  drive  Mr.  Lard,  before  I  have 
done,  to  this  extreme,  if  he  is  not  there  already.  But, 
for  the  present,  I  will  quote  him  further: 

"We  agree  to  the  mournful  truth,  that  man  is  de- 
praved, i.  e.,  that  his  reason  has  been  greatly  clouded 
by  the  fall,  that  his  tastes  and  feelings  have  been  per- 
verted, and  that  he  -no  longer  reflects  the  image — the 
moral  image — of  his  great  original,  as  he  once  reflected 
it;  that  he  now  reflects  it  only  as  a  broken  mirror  re- 
flects the  image  of  the  face  before  it.  The  three  respects 
in  which  man  has  chiefly  suff'ered  by  the  fall,  we  con- 
ceive to  be  his  subjection  to  mortality,  his  loss  of  the 


Jeter's  campbellisji  exposed.  157 

moral  image  of  a  kind  Creator,  and  his  greater  exposed- 
ness  to  temptation  and  sin."' 

"  We  agree,  further,  that  all  (infants  included)  are  so 
frail  or  weak,  that,  after  a  certain  period  of  life,  they 
not  only  sin,  but  they  are  even  inclined  to  sin.  But 
this  inclination  we  believe  to  be  owing,  at  first  at  least, 
rather  to  the  force  of  temptation,  and  the  feebleness  of 
the  resistance  offered  by  an  immature  resisting  will,  and 
untaught  judgment,  than  to  anything  in  the  form  of  an 
innate,  inherited  depravity,  so  inveterate  that  resistance 
becomes  nearly,  if  not  quite  impossible.  True,  we  all 
inherit  that  frail  nature  which  renders  us  so  extremely 
susceptible  to  temptation.  Nay,  we  will  even  grant  that 
we  inherit  it  in  an  aggravated  form,  which  is  the  only 
form  in  which  we  do  inherit  it.  But  we  inherit  no  form 
of  depravity  so  inveterate  as  to  affect  the  perfect  free- 
dom of  the  human  will,  cloi^e  llie  heca-t  against  the  truth, 
or  render  man  insusceptible  of  being  moved  by  motives; 
in  a  word,  no  form  which  renders  him  incapable  of  being 
converted  bg  the  simple  unaided  light  and  force  of  divine 
truth."' 

The  two  quotations  above  give  you  the  full  benefit 
of  Mr.  Lard's  view  of  depravity.  I  shall  test  their  cor- 
rectness by  and  by.  For  the  present,  I  will  simply  note 
some  points  in  them.  1.  Man  is  depraved.  2.  That 
is,  (a)  His  reason  has  been  greatly  clouded,  (h)  His 
tastes  and  feelings  have  been  perverted.  (c)  He  no 
longer  reflects  the  moral  image  of  his  Creator  as  he  once 
reflected  it.  (r?)  All  this  has  been  efi'ected  by  the  fall, 
(e)  We  all  inherit  that  frail  nature  which  renders  us  so 
extremely  susceptible  of  temptation.  (/)  It  is  granted 
that  we  inherit  it  in  an  aggravated  form.  (</)  But  ad- 
mitting all  this,  still  it  can  be  remedied  by  the  simple, 
unaided  light  and  force  of  Divine  truth.     (Ji)  I  will  then 


158  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

add,  therefore,  of  course,  there  is  no  need  of  the  injiuence 
of  (lie  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion ! 

But  now  we  will  see,  that  though  Mr.  Lard  has  ad- 
mitted all  the  above,  he  goes  on  to  contradict  it.  The 
following  paragraph  is  a  complete  contradiction. 

"  But  this  frailty  or  weakness  is  not  sin:  it  is  only  a 
condition  without  which  there  had  been  no  sin.  Nor  is 
it  a  consequence  of  Adanis  sin.  Adam  possessed  it  before 
he  sinned,  else  he  had  not  sinned:  hence  it  is  not  a  con- 
seqvence  of  his  sin.  It  is,  however,  a  condition  of  sin, 
since  without  it  Adam  could  not  have  sinned;  but  it  is 
only  a  condition.  Nor,  perhaps,  will  facts  warrant  the 
conclusion  that  this  frailty  is,  even  in  our  case,  greatly 
increased.  For  greater  weakness  in  sinning  was  never 
displayed  than  by  Adam.  He  yielded  to  the  first  tempt- 
ation ever  presented  to  him,  without,  so  far  as  we  know, 
oifering  even  the  slightest  resistance.  None  of  his  de- 
scendants ever  did  more." 

Now,  reader,  can  you  reconcile  this  latter  quotation 
with  the  former  ? 

1.  The  former  says  man  is  depraved.  The  latter  says 
he  is  frail  or  locah.  Is  frailty  or  weakness  depravity? 
It  is  not.  Frailty  or  weakness  may  express  a  natural 
state,  an  original  condition.  Not  so  depravity.  Deprav- 
ity is  something  siper induced.  A  corruption  of  the  orig- 
inal condition, 

2.  The  former  says,  man's  reason  has  become  be- 
clouded, his  taste  and  feelings  greatly  perverted,  etc., 
hy  the  fall.  But  the  latter  says,  all  this  is  not  a  conse- 
quence  of  Adam's  sin  !  Now,  what  is  the  fall  but  Adam's 
sin?  And  is  not  that  which  has  been  done  by  the  fall, 
a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  ? 

3.  The  former  says,  we  inherit  this  frailty,  or  weak- 
ness, or  depravity,  (for  I  take  it  that  Mr.  Lard  uses  these 


JETER'S    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  159 

terms  as  equivalents;)  but  the  latter  says,  we  do  not  in- 
herit it  as  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin.  Adam  pos- 
sessed it  before  he  sinned.  Hence  it  is  man's  original 
CONDITION.  Then,  from  whom  do  we  inherit  it?  The 
word,  "  INHERIT,"  means  to  take  by  descent  from  an 
ancestor — to  receive  by  nature  from  a  progenitor.  Now, 
that  frail  nature  which  renders  us  so  extremely  suscep- 
tible of  temptation,  belongs  to  us  by  inheritance.  But 
it  is  not  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin.  Adam  pos- 
sessed it  before  he  sinned.  So  says  Mr.  Lard.  Then  I 
ask  again,  from  whom  do  we  inherit  it?  But  one  an- 
swer can  be  given.  If  we  do  not  inherit  it  from  Adam 
as  a  FALLEN  progenitor,  we  inherit  it  from  him  as  an 
ORIGINAL  progenitor.  And  of  course  he  inherited  it 
from  God!  THIS  MAKES  GOD  THE  AUTHOR  OF 
SIN!! 

But,  be  it  remembered,  that  this  comes  directly  in  con- 
tact with  the  declaration  of  the  apostle  James :  "  Let 
no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted  of  God  : 
for  God  can  not  be  tempted  of  evil,  neither  tempteth  he 
any  man  :  but  every  man  is  tempted  when  he  is  drawn 
away  by  his  own  lusts  and  enticed." — James  i :  13,  14. 
In  the  17th  verse  the  apostle  tells  us  what  does  come 
from  God.  Namely,  "  Every  good  gift,  and  every  perfect 
gift  is  from  above,  and  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of 
lights."  God  is  the  author  of  everything  that  is  good, 
but  of  nothing  that  is  evil. 

Mr.  Lard,  it  seems  to  me,  is  doing  his  utmost  to  wrest 
the  work  of  conversion  out  of  God's  hands,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  to  make  him  chargeable  with  human  crime  on 
the  other.  He  at  least  does  this  :  he  will  not  let  the 
Holy  Spirit  dispose  the  heart  of  the  sinner  to  receive 
the  truth.  He  will  not  let  him  be  the  author  of  that 
virtuous  state  of  the  heart,  out  of  which,  a«  out  of  a 


160  AN    EXAMINATION    OF   LARd's   REVIEW    OP 

fountain,  all  holy  affections,  desires,  and  actions,  flow, 
but  he  will  have  him  to  be  the  author  of  that  trail,  and 
WEAK  or  depraved  condition  of  human  nature  "without 
which  there  had  been  no  sin  !  "     This  is  awful  ! 

4.  The  former  quotation  says:  "We  inherit  it"  (that 
frail  and  weak  nature,  which  renders  us  so  extremely 
susceptible  of  temptation)  "in  an  aggravated  form," 
— yea,  more — that  '•'  this  is  the  only  form  in  which  we 
do  inherit  it."  But  the  latter  quotation  says,  not  only 
that  Adam  possessed  it  before  he  sinned,  but  also  that 
in  our  case  it  is  not  greatly  increased.  "  For  greater 
weakness  in  sinning  was  never  displayed  than  by  Adam  !" 

It  is  an  old  adage :  "  Whom  the  gods  intend  to  de- 
stroy they  first  make  mad."  Was  not  Mr.  Lard's  mind 
out  of  order  when  he  wrote  so  contradictorily?  He 
seems  to  affirm  and  deny  alternately. 

AVe  inherited  frailty  and  weakness  in  an  aggravated 
form,  and  yet  we  are  but  little  if  any  weaker  or  more 
frail  than  Adam  was  in  his  primeval  state !  Our  aggra- 
vated frailty  and  weakness  was  produced  by  the  fall,  and 
yet  it  is  not  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  !  The  only 
form  of  frailty  and  weakness  we  inherit  is  an  aggra- 
vated one,  and  yet  facts  will  not  warrant  the  conclu- 
sion that  our  frailty  and  weakness  is  much  greater  than 
Adam's;  for  greater  weakness  in  sinning  was  never  dis- 
played than  by  him  !  We  inherit  frailty  and  weakness 
in  an  aggravated  form,  if  we  inherit  them  at  all,  and 
yet  facts  will  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  we  do  thus 
inherit  them  !  Then,  of  course,  we  do  not  inherit  them 
at  all !     Yet  we  are  depraved  !  ! 

Now,  I  want  the  reader  to  note  particularly  one  thing, 
namely:  This  frailty  which  we  now  inherit,  Mr.  Lard 
says,  Adam  possessed  before  he  fell.  Then,  of  course, 
UE  got  it  from  God.     Then,  of  course,  it  is  not  neces- 


Jeter's  cajipbellism  exposed.  161 

sary  for  God  to  regenerate  man,  if  iu  his  first  gener- 
ation he  gave  him  a  weak  and  frail  nature;  for  he  might 
give  liim  such  a  nature  in  his  second  generation.  In- 
deed, if  man  is  now  as  good  as  he  was  when  God  made 
him,  he  is  as  good  as  God  wants  him  to  be ;  for  then 
he  pronounced  him  "very  good."  If  man  was  "very 
good"  then,  and  is  as  good  now  as  he  was  then,  he  is 
very  good  still.  And  he  is,  therefore,  good  enougli ! 
I  think  Mr.  Lard  should  either  recede  from  his  pres- 
ent position,  or  advance  one  step  further — either  come 
back  to  orthodox  ground,  and  acknowledge  man's  utter 
— yes,  utter — depravity,  or  go  on  reforming  until  he  not 
only  denies,  as  he  has  done,  the  need  of  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion,  but  also  that  man  needs 
conversion  at  all !  For,  plainly,  if  man  is  now  no  worse 
than  Adam  was  before  he  sinned,  be  needs  no  conver- 
sion ! 

§  2. 

I.  Mr.  Lard  proceeds  to  give  us  Mr.  Jeter's  "  plea" 
for  that  "  inveterate  form  of  depravity,"  for  which  he 
contends  thus: 

'•  The  Spirit  of  inspiration  has  drawn  the  picture  of 
man's  moral  corruption,  in  gloomy  colors.  He  is  utterly 
depraved,  fleshly,  sensual,  and  impure.  "  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh." — John  iii :  G.  He  is  with- 
out spiritual  life,  without  holiness,  without  moral  worth, 
— "dead  in  trespasses  and  sins." — Eph.  ii :  1.  He  is 
alienated  from  God  and  opposed  to  his  law,  and  conse- 
quently, to  truth  and  righteousness.  "  Because  the  car- 
nal mind  is  enmity  against  God  :  for  it  is  not  subject  to 
his  law,  neither  indeed  can  be." — Rom.  viii :  7.  This 
depravity  pervades  and  controls  the  whole  man — blind- 
ing the  mind,  perverting  the  affections,  stupefying  the 


162  AN   EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's  REVIEW    OF 

conscience,  making  rebellious  and  obstinate  the  will, 
and  prostituting  the  members  of  the  body  as  the  instru- 
ments of  sin.  And  this  moral  corruption  of  human  na- 
ture is  universal.  "  For  all  have  sinned  and  come  short 
of  the  glory  of  God." — Rom.  iii :  23. 

"There  is  here,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  '-an  obvious  effort 
to  overstrain  the  truth,  which  in  itself  is  bad  enough 
without  any  hightening." 

1.  How  is  such  an  effort  obvious?  The  quotation 
consists  of  a  few  passages  from  Scripture,  and  a  few  re- 
marks by  way  of  comment.  Are  not  the  remarks  justi- 
fied and  sustained  by  the  passages  ? 

2.  But  how  can  Mr.  Lard  say,  the  "truth"  of  man's 
depravity  "  is  bad  enough  within  itself  without  any 
hightening,"  if  he  is  now  in  a  condition  but  little,  if 
any,  worse  than  that  of  Adam  before  he  sinned?  God 
seemed  to  think  Adam's  condition  good  enough  ;  and  it 
certainly  was,  if  he  was  "  very  good."  The  language  of 
Mr.  Lard,  unless  he  intends  again  to  contradict  himself, 
is  a  reflection  upon  the  Divine  honor. 

"  But  it  is  proper,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "  to  descend  to 
particulars.  1st.  "He  [man]  is  utterly  depraved,  fleshly, 
sensual,  and  impure."  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh 
is  flesh." — John  iii:  6.     Thus  afiirms  Mr.  Jeter. 

"Now,  we  freely  grant,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "that  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  but,  that  flesh  and 
%iUer  depravity  mean  the  same  thing,  or  represent  the 
same  idea,  is  something  we  do  not  believe." 

Now,  this  question  turns  upon  the  idea  which  the 
Scriptures  attach  to  the  term  "flesh."  Let  us  inquire 
what  did  Jesus  mean  when  he  said  to  Nicodemus,  "That 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh." 

1.  His  meaning  is  suggested  by  the  contrast — "  That 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."     Does  he  mean  by 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  163 

tliis  contrast,  merely  that  the  human  body — the  animal 
part — is  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  ?  and  that  the  hu- 
man soul — the  immaterial  part — is  born  of  the  Spirit? 
In  other  words,  does  he  mean  that  as  our  natural  birth 
gives  existence  to  our  flesh,  so  does  our  spiritual  birth  give 
existence  to  our  spirits?  I  think  no  one  will  thus  aftirm. 
No  :  his  meaning  obviously  is,  that  a  man  must  be  born 
again, — not  with  respect  to  his  body,  but  with  respect  to 
his  spirit.  That  is,  as  by  his  natural  birth  he  is  sinful, 
he  must  be  born  again — born  of  the  Spirit — to  be  made 
holy.  The  intimation  is,  his  moral  corruption  belongs 
to  him  by  reason  of  his  being  the  oflFspring  of  a  fallen 
parent.  This  being  so,  for  him  to  be  born  again,  ac- 
cording to  the  understanding  of  Nicodemus,  would  do 
him  no  good.  A  second  natural  birth — a  birth  of  the 
flesh,  would  not  change  his  moral  nature.  It  would 
leave  him  in  precisely  the  same  condition  as  his  first 
birth. 

2.  Now,  as  the  Savior  can  not  mean  by  the  term 
"flesh,"  the  mere  corporeal  nature  of  man,  he  must 
mean  his  corrupt  moral  nature.  Hence,  "flesh"  and  "ut- 
ter depravity"  mean  the  same  thing.  Let  the  reader 
consult  the  following  passages  of  Scripture,  (Rom.  vii : 
18 :)  "  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in  mj  flesh)  there 
dwelleth  no  good  thing."  AYill  not  the  word  "  utter" 
apply  here?  If  in  Paul's  flesh  there  dwelt  no  good 
thing,  was  it  not  utterly  destitute  of  good?  So  the  flesh 
of  man,  when  contrasted  with  that  which  the  Son  of  God 
took  upon  him,  is  called  "sinful  flesh."  "  God  sent  his 
Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh." — Rom.  viii :  3.  Now, 
so  far  as  the  mere  flesh — the  material  part  of  man — Is 
concerned,  does  it  difl"er  from  the  mere  flesh  of  Jesus 
Christ?  Evidently  not.  The  difi"erence  between  him 
and  man,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  while  man's  natural 


164  EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

birth  entails  upon  him  a  sinful  nature,  Jesus,  though 
born  as  man  is,  born  of  a  woman,  was  exempt  from  this 
entailment.  He  took  upon  him  our  nature,  yet  icitliout 
sin. —  Heb.  iv:  15.     We  take  it^  with  sin. 

3.  Let  the  reader  consult,  also,  Gral.  iv  :  29.  "  But  as 
then,  he  that  was  born  after  the  flesh  persecuted  him  that 
was  horn  after  the  Spirit^  even  so  it  is  now."  Here  Ish- 
mael  and  Isaac,  the  two  sons  of  Abraham,  are  alluded 
to.  But  they  are  alluded  to  as  typical  persons.  The 
former  represents  an  unconverted  man — a  "Jew  out- 
wardly;" while  the  latter  represents  a  converted  man — 
a  "Jew  inwardly." — Rom.  ii :  28,  29.  In  other  words, 
Ishmael  is  typical  of  man  in  his  carnal,  fleshly  state, 
while  Isaac  is  typical  of  man  in  his  spiritual,  or  regen- 
erated state.  The  contrast  is  precisely  similar  to  the 
one  drawn  by  the  Savior  in  the  words  we  are  consider- 
ing. Is  there  any  good — any  moral  worth  in  the  typi- 
cal Ishmael?  Is  he  not  utterly  destitute  of  it?  If  Mr. 
Lard  thinks  there  is,  let  him  point  it  out. 

4.  I  would  also  call  the  reader's  attention  to  Gal.  v: 
16-24.  "  This  I  say  then,  walk  in  the  Spirit,  and  ye 
shall  not  fulfill  the  lust  of  the^es^.  For  the  flesh  lusteth 
against  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh:  and 
these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other;  so  that  ye  can 
not  do  the  things  that  ye  would.  '=-'  *  *  Now,  the 
works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  whicli  are  these  :  adul- 
tery, fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry, 
witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife,  se- 
ditions, heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revel- 
ings,  and  such  like."  Now,  certainly,  these  are  not  the 
"fruit"  or  "works"  of  human  nature  as  it  came  from 
the  hands  of  the  Creator,  but  of  fallen,  sinful,  fleshly  hu- 
man nature  ;  therefore,  of  depraved,  "  utterly  depraved," 
human  nature. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  1G5 

"But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  (as  contrasted  with 
the  'works  of  the  flesh,)  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffer- 
ing, gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance." 
These  are  the  fruits  of  regenerated  human  nature — 
"  Make  the  tree  good,  and  the  fruit  will  be  good." 
"Now  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  "  i.  e.,  it 
is  that  carnal,  depraved,  and  sinful  state  of  human  na- 
ture which,  like  a  corrupt  tree,  produces  these  abomi- 
nable fruits  ;  while  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit;"  i.  e.,  that  regenerated  and  holy  state  of  human 
nature  that,  as  a  good  tree,  yields  those  good  and  holy 
fruits. 

5.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  Lard  disputes  Mr.  Jeter's  in- 
terpretation of  the  term  "flesh,"  he  does  not  tell  us  what 
he  understands  it  to  mean.  From  all  he  has  said,  one 
would  infer  that  he  understands  the  term  in  its  literal 
sense.  That  is,  as  simply  designating  the  material  part 
of  man.  If  Mr.  Lard  does  not  understand  it  in  this 
sense,  it  beconses  him  to  tell  the  world  in  what  sense  he 
does  understand  it. 

II.  The  second  particular  3Ir.  Lard  gives  us  from  Mr. 
Jeter,  is  : 

"  He  [man]  is  without  spiritual  life,  without  holiness, 
without  moral  worth — dead  in  trespasses  and  sins. — 
Eph.  ii:  1." 

Mr,  Lard  replies:  "Now,  we  admit  that  man,  unre- 
generate,  is  without  spiritual  life,  without  holiness,  but 
not  quite  that  he  is  without  moral  worth;  or  rather,  we 
admit  that  man  is  unregenerate.  But  this  is  not  the 
question  at  issue,  neither  does  it  imply  it.  Is  a  man 
who  is  admitted  to  be  without  spiritual  life  to  be  there- 
fore deemed  utterly  depraved?     This  is  the  question." 

Well,  let  this  be  the  question.  Then  it  is  to  be  de- 
cided by  the  meaning  of  the  two    terms   "death"   and 


166  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW  OF 

"life."  Man  is  admitted  to  be  "dead  in  sins,"  to  be 
without  "  spiritual  life."  Then  is  he  not  utterly  de- 
praved ?     Let  us  see. 

1.  As  death  is  the  opposite  of  life,  to  ascertain  what 
death  is,  we  must  first  ascertain  what  life  is.  What  does 
the  Bible  call  life — spiritual  life?  The  following  pas- 
sages from  that  book  answer  this  question  :  "  We  know 
that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto  life,-  because  we 
love  the  brethren.  He  that  loveth  not  his  brother, 
abideth  in  death." — 1  John  iii :  14.  Now,  here  you  see 
that  he  who  hates  is  in  a  state  of  death,  while  he  who 
loves  is  in  a  state  of  life.  And  that  he  was  once  in  the 
former  state,  but  has  passed  out  of  it  into  the  latter. 
It  follows,  then,  that  love  is  life,  and  hatred,  its  oppo- 
site, is  death.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  Rom.  viii :  6, 
7:  "For  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death;  but  to  be 
spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace.  Because  the  car- 
nal mind  is  enmity  against  Grod." 

Now,  note,  in  1  John  iii:  14,  it  is  called  hate;  here 
it  is  called  enmity.  The  carnal  mind  is  death.  The 
carnal  mind  is  enmity.  Then  death  is  enmity.  Now,  as 
the  spiritual  mind  is  the  opposite  of  the  carnal  mind,  it 
follows  that  as  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity,  the  spiritual 
mind  must  be  love^  for  love  is  the  opposite  of  enmity, 
and  vice  versa. 

Now,  if  the  view  here  given  of  the  meanings  of  the 
terms  death  and  life  are  correct,  of  which  I  think  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  they  settle  the  question  of  idter  de- 
jjravity.  There  can  be  no  life  in  death.  There  can  be 
no  love  in  enmity.  A  state  of  love,  of  life,  was  man's 
primeval  state,  a  state  of  enmity,  of  death,  is  man's 
fallen,  depraved  state.  Now,  as  man  in  the  fall  retained 
no  love,  no  life,  he  is  utterly  depraved. 

Mr.   Lard  says  :   "  If  to  be  destitute  of  .'spiritual  life, 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  167 

were  a  consequence  of  utter  depravity,  or  necessarily 
implied  it,  then  of  course  the  existence  of  that  would 
prove  the  reality  of  this." 

I  answer  by  saying,  the  destitution  of  spiritual  life  is 
not  the  conscijueuce  but  the  cause  of  depravity,  or  rather, 
it  is  depravity  itself,  just  as  destitution  of  natural  life 
is  the  cause  of  death,  or  rather  death  itself. 

Mr.  Lard  says:  "The  absence  of  one  thing  can  never 
be  used  to  prove  the  presence  of  another,  unless  the 
one  can  not  be  absent  without  the  other  being  present." 

I  admit  it.  But  I  answer,  that  the  absence  of  life  is 
the  presence  of  death.  Just  as  the  absence  of  light  is 
the  presence  of  darkness.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  one 
can  not  be  absent  without  the  other  being  present.  Mr. 
Lard  seems  to  think  that  to  be  "dead  in  sins,"  and  to 
be  "  depraved,"  are  two  things.  But  they  are  surely 
two  names  for  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Lard  denies  that  depraved  man  is  destitute  of 
"  moral  worth."  Whether  he  is  or  is  not,  depends  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  term  "  moral  worth."  Moral  worth, 
I  take  it,  means  the  same  as  "  moral  rectitude."  Moral 
rectitude  consists  in  an  inward  and  outicard  conformity 
to  God's  law.  Well,  that  says:  "Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  soul,  with  all  thy  mind,  and 
with  all  thy  strength."  And  this  one  word  "love,"  is, 
as  Paul  says,  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  "  Love,"  then, 
is  "  moral  worth."  Well,  is  not  carnal  man  destitute  of 
love?  He  who  says  no,  contradicts  the  Bible.  Now, 
as  man  is  destitute  of  love,  he  is  destitute  of  "moral 
worth." 

Mr.  Lard  says :  "  The  expression,  '  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins,'  with  which  Mr.  Jeter  terminates  the  preceding 
extract,  and  upon  which  he  rests  its  truth,  proves  noth- 
ing in  his  favor.     If  an  absolute  death  were  meant,  then 


168  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OP 

perhaps  it  might;  but  such  is  not  the  case.  A  man  ab- 
solutely dead  is  as  incapable  of  sinning,  as  he  is  of  being 
righteous,  whether  the  death  be  that  of  the  body  or  that 
of  the  spirit." 

Reader,  let  us  notice  this  extract  carefully.  For  this 
purpose  I  will  take  it  up  item  by  item  : 

1.  The  expression  "dead  in  sins"  "proves  nothing 
for  Mr.  Jeter."  Now,  let  us  see.  Mr.  Jeter  says  : 
"  Man  is  without  spiritual  life."  Does  not  this  expres- 
sion prove  that?  If  it  does  not  why  did  Mr.  Lard  admit 
it?  He  says:  "We  admit  that  man  is  without  spirit- 
ual life."  Mr.  Jeter  says  :  "  Man  is  without  holiness." 
Does  not  this  expression  prove  that?  Can  a  man  have 
holiness  and  yet  be  dead  in  sins  ?  And  why,  I  ask 
again,  did  Mr.  Lard  admit  this  also?  He  says:  "We 
admit  that  man  is  without  ^  *  *  holiness."  Mr. 
Jeter  adds  in  the  last  place,  "  Without  moral  worth." 
This  Mr.  Lard  does  not  quite  admit.  But  the  phrase, 
"  not  quite,"  does  not  allow  of  an  unqualified  denial. 
But  we  can  very  well  afford  to  do  without  his  admission 
here.  I  have  shown  to  be  dead  in  sins  is  to  be  without 
love,  and  to  be  without  love  is  to  be  without  "moral 
worth."  So,  after  all,  the  expression  fully  sustains  Mr. 
Jeter ! 

2.  "  If  an  absolute  death  were  meant,  then  perhaps  it 
might"  sustain  Mr.  Jeter. 

Is  not  an  absolute  death  meant?  If  a  man  has  no 
life  in  him,  is  he  not  absolutely  dead  ?  Well,  our  Savior, 
Christ,  says:  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.'' — 
John  vi :  53.  I  again  say,  as  love  is  life,  he  who  is  des- 
titute of  love,  is  destitute  of  life,  absolutely  destitute. 
Well,  unregenerate  man  is  destitute  of  love,  therefore 
destitute  of  life.     Said   Jesus:    "I    know   you,  that  ye 


JETER  S   CAMPBELLISM   EXPOSED.  169 

have  not  tbe  love  of  God  in  you." — John  v:  42.  Man 
in  a  moral  point  of  view,  has  not  had  merely  a  '■'■faint- 
ing sjjell."  He  is  not  in  a  mere  comatose  state.  His 
conversion  does  not  consist  in  mere  resuscitation.  He 
passes  from  death  unto  life.  He  is  quickened.  Every 
converted  man  is  as  one  alive  from  among  the  dead. 
He  is  "risen  with  Christ." — Col.  iii:  1.  Now,  as  an 
absolute  death  is  intended,  the  expression  sustains  Mr. 
Jeter. 

3.  "A  man  absolutely  dead  is  as  incapable  of  sinning 
as  he  is  of  being  righteous." 

There  is  just  as  much  truth  in  this  statement  as  there 
would  be  in  saying :  "A  man  absolutely  dishonest  is  as 
incapable  of  stealing  as  he  is  o^  paying  his  just  debts  f^ 
or  in  saying:  "A  man  absolutely  avaricious  is  as  in- 
capable of  being  covetous  as  he  is  of  being  benevolent !  " 
A  man  absolutely  dead,  in  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures, 
is  one  wholly  alienated  from  God.  Is  such  a  one  as 
incapable  oi'  rebellion  as  he  is  of  loyally'?  He  who  would 
assert  it  would  not  know  what  he  is  talking  about. 

§3. 

Mr.  Lard  thinks  the  very  power  to  sin  involves  a  vir- 
tual refutation  of  one  of  Mr.  Jeter's  chief  objections  to 
his  theory  of  conversion,  to  wit :  the  impotency  of  mo- 
tives upon  the  sinner's  will. 

"  The  power  to  sin,"  he  adds,  "is  not  the  mere  phys- 
ical power  to  sin,  but  the  moral  power.  It  is  the  power 
to  sin  or  not,  just  as  we  choose.  He  who  can  not  choose 
between  sinning  and  not  sinning,  can  not  sin.  And  the 
power  to  choose  implies  the  power  to  choose  for  rea- 
sons ;  and  this  of  course,  Jiiat  he  who  chooses  is  sus- 
ceptible of  being  determined  by  motives.  This  is  all  we 
contend  for ;  but  in  contending  for  this,  it  must  be  ap- 


170  AN    EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's    REVIEW    OP 

parent  that  we  contend  not  merely  that  the  sinner  can 
be  determined  by  motives  in  some  cases,  but  that  he 
can  be  in  all  cases  ;  and  hence,  of  course,  in  that  of  con- 
version." 

Then  I  suppose  the  question  is  the  potency  of  motives, 
or  their  impotency  on  the  sinner's  will.  Mr.  Lard  con- 
tends for  the  former ;  Mr.  Jeter  for  the  latter.  And, 
therefore,  Mr.  Jeter  contends  for  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  conversion,  and  Mr.  Lard  denies  it!  If  the 
sinner  can  be  determined  by  motives  in  all  cases,  con- 
version not  excepted,  of  course  motives  are  all  that  is 
wanting  in  the  case,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  may  "  stand 
aside  ! !" 

There  lurks  ingenious  sophistry  in  the  above  quota- 
tion from  Mr.  Lard.  While  it  is  very  plausible,  it  is 
very  false.  When  he  says:  "He  who  can  not  choose 
between  sinning  and  not  sinning,  can  not  sin,"  he  seems 
to  utter  an  axiom,  but  he  utters  a  sophism.  When  he 
says,  "  The  power  to  choose  implies  the  power  to  choose 
for  reasoiis,  and  this,  of  course,  that  he  who  cliooses  is 
susceptible  of  being  determined  by  motives,"  we  are 
almost  ready  to  acquiesce,  being  blinded  by  the  glare 
of  its  plausibility.  But  let  us  put  the  glass  of  revela- 
tion and  facts  to  our  eyes,  and  we  shall  see  where  lurks 
the  falsehood. 

1.  Let  us  take  the  case  of  the  antediluvians.  We 
read  in  Gen.  vi:  5:  "And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness 
of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagina- 
tion of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continu- 
ally." Were  these  antediluvians  susceptible  of  being 
determined  by  mere  motives  to  God  and  to  holiness  ? 
Then  why  did  God  abandon  all  effort  for  their  reforma- 
tion, and  repent  that  he  had  made  them  ?  W^hy  were 
they  not  converted  by  the  earnest  and  terrific  preaching 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  171 

of  Enoch,  when  he  thundered  in  their  earst  "Behold, 
the  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints,  to  exe- 
cute judgment  upon,  and  to  convince  all  that  are  ungodly 
among  them,  of  all  their  ungodly  deeds  which  they  have 
ungodly  committed,  and  of  all  their  hard  speeches  which 
ungodly  sinners  have  spoken  against  him?" — Jude  14, 
15.  And  why  did  Noah,  that  "preacher  of  righteous- 
ness," have  no  better  success? 

2.  We  know  that  a  depraved  disposition,  a  corrupt 
heart,  one  "deceitful  and  desperately  wicked,"  will  not 
yield  to  simple  motives.  This  is  the  experience  of  the 
world.  How  often  do  we  hear  it  said  of  an  abandoned 
wretch:  "He  can  not  be  reformed.  You  might  as  well 
expostulate  with  the  winds  as  with  him?"  Yet,  who 
ever  thinks  of  acquitting  him  of  blame  on  this  account? 
The  fact  is,  the  more  perverse  and  fixed  the  man  is  in 
sin  and  rebellion,  the  more  criminal  he  is.  The  more 
powerless  the  motives  to  good  are  upon  him,  the  more 
criminal  is  he.  What  is  murder  in  the  Jirst  degree?  Is 
not  homicide  committed  with  malice  prepense,  afore 
thought?  The  more  desperately  set  the  heart  is  upon 
an  evil  deed,  the  more  powerless  are  the  motives  that 
should  dissuade  from  it;  and  yet  no  one  thinks  that  this 
palliates  or  excuses  the  guilt:  it  only  increases  it. 

But  when  motives  fail,  the  Spirit  of  God  can  succeed. 
In  the  case  of  the  antediluvians,  Enoch  warned,  Noah 
preached,  but  the  Spirit  of  God  ceased  to  strive.  In  just 
displeasure,  God  left  them  to  perish  in  their  sins.  And 
as  then,  so  now,  let  God  say,  "My  Spirit  shall  not  al- 
ways strive  with  man,"  (Gen.  vi:  3,)  and  there  will  be 
an  end  of  conversion. 

Mr.  Lard  seems  to  view  the  sinner  as  in  a  state  of 
equipoise  between  sin  and  holiness,  between  Satan  and 


172  AN   EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

God,  between  rebellion  and  loyalty;  and  tbat,  hence, 
motives  to  holiness  and  sin  have  the  same  weight,  and 
the  man  is  as  free  to  yield  to  the  one  as  the  other.  Here 
is  his  mistake.  The  scale  has  already  turned.  Man  is 
in  a  state  of  alienation  from  Grod.  He  has  declared  war 
against  his  Maker.  The  rebellion  has  broken  out.  And 
now  the  sound  of  the  Gospel  is  heard  amid  the  clangor 
of  arms.  We,  who  are  "embassadors  for  Christ,"  and 
are  praying  men  in  his  stead  to  be  reconciled  to  God, 
are  dealing  with  rebels.  Here  lies  the  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  success.  But,  thank  God,  as  Joshua,  when  he 
led  the  hosts  of  Israel  to  battle,  saw  the  Captain  of  the 
Lord's  host  standing  with  his  sword  drawn  and  ready  to 
help  him,  so  we  hear  our  Master  saying :  "Lo,  /am  with 
you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world;"  and, 
hence,  our  hope  that  our  Gospel  will  come  to  the  people, 
"  not  in  word  only,  but  also  in  jjoicer,  in  the  HoIi/  Ghost, 
and  in  much  assurance." — 1  Thess.  i:  5. 

3.  The  third  particular  Mr.  Lard  gives  us  from  Mr. 
Jeter,  is :  "  Man  is  alienated  from  God,  and  opposed  to 
his  law,  and  consequently  to  truth  and  righteousness. 
'  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God ;  for 
it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can 
be.'  "—Bom.  viii :  7. 

Mr.  Lard  then  goes  on  to  say :  "  The  carnal  mind,  or, 
emphatically,  the  mind  of  the  flesh,  which  is  here  said 
to  be  enmity  to  God,  is  something  which,  in  this  life, 
is  never  subject  to  the  will  of  God ;  indeed  it  can  not 
be.  No  power  can  tame  it.  Hence  it  is  lawless  in  the 
saint  as  in  the  sinner.  There  is  this  difference :  the 
saint  by  the  Spirit  holds  it  in  check;  but  the  sinner  is 
governed  by  it.  Both  can  control  it  if  they  will,  at 
least  to  a  great  extent,  but  neither  can  subdue  it  com- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  173 

pletely.  The  determination  to  control  it,  the  efforts  so 
to  do,  and  the  partial  success,  make  the  difference  be- 
tween the  Christian  and  the  sinner." 

I  have  quoted  several  strange  paragraphs  from  Mr. 
Lard,  but  this,  in  my  estimation,  exceeds  all  its  prede- 
cessors. The  saint,  it  seems,  is  carnally  minded  as  well 
as  the  sinner  !  The  mind  of  the  saint  is  enmity  against 
Grod  as  well  as  the  mind  of  the  sinner  I  But  the  saint, 
hy  the  Spirit^  holds  it  in  check;  but  the  sinner,  poor 
fellow,  is  denied  the  Spirit,  and,  hence,  is  governed  by 
it !  Mr.  Lard  must  give  us  more  than  Ms  assertion  be- 
fore we  can  believe  all  this. 

1.  Is  the  Christian  carnally  minded  as  well  as  the  sin- 
ner? Then  what  change  has  he  undergone?  If  the 
Christian  is  carnally  minded,  who  is  spiritually  minded? 
No :  the  sinner  is  carnally  minded,  but  the  Christian  is 
spiritually  minded.  The  sinner  walks  after  the  flesh, 
but  the  Christian  after  the  Spirit.  The  sinner  lives  after 
the  flesh,  but  the  Christian,  through  the  Spirit,  morti- 
fies the  deeds  of  the  body.  See  Rom.  viii:  4-14,  in- 
clusive. 

2.  Is  it  so  that  the  "  determination  to  control  "  the 
carnal  mind,  "  the  effort  to  do  so,  and  the  partial  suc- 
cess," make  the  difference  between  the  Christian  and  the 
sinner?  I  thought  that  "they  who  are  Christ's  have 
crucified  the  flesh  with  its  affections  and  lusts." — Gal.  v: 
24.  I  have  thought  that  the  "difference  between  the 
Christian  and  the  sinner,"  is  this:  that  as  "Christ  is  in 
the  Christian,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin,  but  the 
spirit  is  alive  because  of  righteousness."  Does  not 
John  say,  "Whosoever  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil," 
while  "he  who  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  be- 
cause his  seed  remaineth  in  him,  and  he  can  not  sin 
because  he  is  born  of  God  ?"     And  does  he  not  say,  "In 


174  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

this  is  manifest  the  children  of  God  and  the  children  of 
the  devil?"  (See  1  John  iii:  8,  9,  10.)  Does  Mr.  Lard 
know  better  than  Paul  and  John?  I  presume  not.  1 
had  rather  believe  them  than  him. 

3.  Not  only  does  Mr.  Lard  teach  that  the  Christian  as 
well  as  the  sinner  is  carnally  minded,  he  also  teaches 
that  with  his  carnal  mind  nothing  can  be  done.  The 
existence  of  this  carnal  mind,  he  says,  proves,  not  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary  to  conversion,  but  that  there 
is  a  principle  in  man  that  can  not  be  subdued  at  all — 
can  not  be  subjected  to  the  law  of  God,  either  by  the 
truth  or  by  any  other  influence.  Then  I  should  like  to 
know,  in  the  first  place,  how  man  came  by  this  principle? 
Ls  it  an  original  principle  of  human  nature?  Then  God 
put  it  there.  Is  it  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin?  This 
Mr.  Lard  has  already  denied.  Will  Mr.  Lard  give  us 
light  here  ? 

I  should  like  to  know,  in  the  second  place,  how  it  is 
that,  if  this  principle  can  not  be  subdued  at  all — if  it 
can  not  be  subjected  to  the  law  of  God,  either  by  the 
truth,  or  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  it,  the 
Christian  can  hold  it  in  check?  How  is  it  that  both 
saint  and  sinner  can  control  it  to  a  great  extent?  How 
can  we  hold  in  check  and  control  to  a  great  extent  what 
we  can  not  subdue  at  all  ? 

But  is  it  true  that  nothing  can  be  done  with  the  carnal 
mind?  Is  it  true  that  the  Christian  is  possessed  of  a 
mind  that  is  ^'■enmity  against  God?"  No:  in  regener- 
ation the  principle  is  slain,  and  the  "  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  If  any  man 
be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature." — 2  Cor.  v :  17.  God 
"creates  in  him  a  clean  heart  and  renews  a  right  spirit 
within  him." — Psalm  li :  10.  "  He  that  lovetli,  is  born  of 
God,  and  knoweth  God,  for  God  is  love." — 1  John  iv  :  7 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  175 

"  He  that  hveth  not,  knoweth  not  God."  Love  and  en- 
mity cannot  dwell  in  the  same  bosom  toward  the  same 
object. 

Again,  I  should  like  to  ask  if  this  principle  of  "  enmity 
against  God,  which  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  nor  indeed 
can  be,"  and  which  is  in  man,  "cannot  be  subdued  at 
all,"  if,  "  after  his  conversion  this  principle  remains  the 
same"  in  the  Christian  that  it  is  in  the  sinner — what 
becomes  of  it  at  last?  Does  it  go  with  the  Christian  into 
eternity?  or  does  death  destroy  it?  Seriously,  I  ask 
Mr.  Lard  for  light  here.  Mr.  Lard  should  reconsider  this 
whole  subject.  He  has  left  it  involved  in  impenetrable 
obscurity.     Will  he  answer  the  following  questions  : 

1.  Is  this  carnal  mind  a  part  of  man's  original  con- 
stitution ?  Tf  it  is,  then  God  is  the  author  of  it.  This 
is  horrible. 

2.  If  it  is  not,  is  it  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  ?  If 
Mr.  Lard  says  yes,  he  contradicts  himself;  for  the  "mind 
of  the  flesh  "  must  be  the  same  thing  as  that  "  form  of 
depravity  "  which  he  admits  we  inherit. 

3.  Is  the  "carnal  mind"  and  human  depravity  or 
"frailty"  the  same  thing? 

4.  If  not,  then  what  is  the  carnal  mind? 

5.  If  it  is,  then  where  did  we  get  it? 

6.  If  it  is  the  same  in  the  Christian  after  his  conver- 
sion that  it  was  before,  what  is  done  for  the  Christian  in 
his  conversion  ? 

7.  Is  he  reneived  in  the  sjiirit  of  his  mind? — Eph.  iv :  23. 

8.  If  he  is,  then  how  can  he  still  have  a  mind  that  is 
enmity  against  God  ? 

§4. 

Mr.  Lard  states  Mr.  Jeter's  second  objection  to  Mr. 
Campbell's  theory  thus  : 


176  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

"■It  (Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  conversion)  is  oblivious 
of  the  chief  drfficulti/  in  conversion ;^'  and  then  makes  one 
admission  which  I  can  not  refrain  from  quoting:  "All 
must  admit  that  the  chief  difficulty  in  conversion  is  a 
serious  one,  and  that  any  theory/  which  overlooks  it  must 
be  extremely  defective."  "  This  witness  is  true."  Now 
what  is  the  chief  difficulty  in  conversion  according  to 
Mr.  Jeter  ?     Mr.  Lard  says  : 

"  We  shall  let  the  following  language  of  Mr.  Jeter 
explain  : 

"  'Mr.  Campbell  maintains  that  "the  arguments  which 
are  written  in  the  New  Testament"  must  be  "  understood,^' 
in  order  to  exert  their  influence  on  the  human  mind. 
(^Christianity  Restored,  p.  350.)  To  understand  these 
arguments  requires  attention,  candor,  and  spiritual  dis- 
cernment. Men  attend  readily  to  what  they  delight  in, 
and  believe  easily  what  is  congenial  with  their  tastes  ; 
but  the  "  natural  man,"  the  unrenewed,  sinful  man,  has  a 
deep-rooted  aversion  to  Divine  truth.  His  aversion  is 
an  element  and  a  proof  of  his  depravity.  He  may 
hear  or  read  the  arguments  contained  in  the  Scriptures, 
through  curiosity,  politeness,  or  a  captious  spirit ;  but 
to  expect  of  him  a  candid,  serious,  docile,  and  obedient 
attention  to  them,  is  to  expect  to  gather  grapes  from 
thorns.'  " 

Here,  then,  we  see  that  Mr.  Jeter  considers  that  a  can- 
did, serious,  docile,  and  obedient  attention  to  the  truth 
are  necessary  to  that  understanding  of  it  which  is  essen- 
tial to  conversion.  But  he  thinks,  also,  that  such  an 
attention  will  not  be  given  by  the  sinner  without  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore  he  believes  in 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion.  But 
Mr.  Lard  says,  only  three  things  are  necessary  in  the 
premises  : 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  177 

"  1st.  That  the  argument  or  truth  '  shall  be  within  it- 
self intellipjible.' 

"  2d.  That  we  possess  the  abilit}^  to  understand  it. 

"  3d.  That  we  give  it  the  requisite  attention." 

But  he  thinks  it  does  not  require  "one  particle  of  can- 
dor." And  as  for  "spiritual  discernment,"  he  confesses 
that  he  knows  nothing  about  it.  And  therefore,  of  course, 
he  denies  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion.  He 
sajs,  to  understand  the  Gospel  so  as  that  it  may  produce 
conversion,  "  requires  common  sense  and  nothing  more." 
Reader,  can  that  be  so?  Can  it  be  so  that  the  Gospel 
can  convert  a  soul  wherein  there  is  not  "  one  particle  of 
candor"  or  spiritual  discernment? 

Let  us  test  this  matter  by  examples.  In  John  viii:  31, 
44,  we  have  a  discourse  of  our  Savior,  delivered  with  all 
his  accustomed  plainness  and  candor,  in  which  he  point- 
ed out  the  fact  to  his  hearers,  that  they  were  in  bondage 
to  sin,  and  of  their  father  the  devil.  But  they  did  not 
understand  him.  Now,  why  did  they  not?  Will  Mr. 
Lard  tell  us  ?  Were  not  all  his  requisites  there  ?  Was 
not  the  argument  of  the  Savior  intelligible?  Had  not 
his  hearers  the  ability  to  understand?  Then  why  did 
they  not  understand  ?  The  Savior  intimates  that  they 
lacked  candor.  "Why  do  ye  not  understand  my  speech? 
Even  because  ye  can  not  hear  my  word." — V.  43.  How 
is  this?  How  is  it  they  could  not  hear?  Were  they 
deaf?  Not  naturally  so.  They  had  ears,  but  they  heard 
not.  Did  they  understand,  Mr.  Lard?  Perhaps  you 
will  say,  "  They  did,  but  would  not  acknowledge  it." 
Well,  the  Savior  says  they  did  not  :  so  there  is  the  dif- 
ference. 

Take  another  example  —  John  ix.  In  this  chapter 
we  have  an  account  of  the  opening  the  eyes  of  the  man 
who  was  born  blind.  He  was  brought  to  the  Phari- 
8* 


178  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

sees  for  examination.  They  asked  him  how  he  had  re- 
ceived his  sight.  He  answered,  "  He  put  clay  on  mine 
eyes,  and  I  washed,  and  do  see."  Here  this  testimony  is 
direct,  intelligible,  and  in  point;  but  did  it  convince? 
No.  They  objected  that  the  miracle  was  done  on  the 
Sabbath  day.  But  being  somewhat  divided  about  the 
matter,  they  asked  the  blind  man,  "What  sayest  thou  of 
him?"  He  answered,  "He  is  a  prophet."  Now,  why 
did  they  not  say  so  too?  Why  did  they  say,  "As  for 
this  man,  we  know  him  to  be  a  sinner?"  Was  the  blind 
man  more  intelligent  than  they  ?  Did  he  give  better 
attention?  Rather,  was  he  not  more  candid?  But  look 
further.  They  prosecute  the  examination.  They  call 
the  parents  and  ask  them  if  the  man  before  them  is  their 
son,  and  if  he  was  born  blind.  The  parents  testify  to 
the  fact  that  he  was  their  son,  and  that  he  was  born 
blind.  Full  proof  was  given  that  the  eyes  of  a  man  that 
was  born  blind  had  been  opened.  And  they  say  to  the 
favored  one,  "  Give  God  the  praise,  but  we  know  that  this 
man  is  a  sinner."  Now,  how  did  they  know  that?  Was 
it  a  legitimate  conclusion  from  any  premise  or  fact  before 
them?  It  was  not.  Then  how  did  they  come  to  it? 
Disingenuousness,  or  the  want  of  candor.  The  blind  man 
said,  "  If  this  man  were  not  of  God  he  could  do  nothing." 
And  had  they  as  much  candor  as  he,  they  would  have 
believed,  and  said  the  same  thing.  Here  he  could  very 
well  say  to  them,  "  Herein  is  a  marvelous  thing,  that  ye 
know  not  from  whence  he  is,  and  yet  he  has  opened  mine 
eyes." 

So  say  I,  and  it  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the 
principle  laid  down  by  Mr.  Jeter.  Had  these  men  been 
under  the  influence  of  those  principles  which  Mr.  Jeter 
says  are  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  truth, 
their  investigations  would  have  led  to  a  very  diflferenfc 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  179 

conclusion  to  the  one  here  recorded  against  them.  Thej; 
however,  only  had  what  Mr.  Lard  says  is  necessary,  and 
hence  they  failed  to  appreciate  this  proof  of  the  Divine 
mission  of  Jesus ! 

Paul  says,  that  the  Jews,  "  because  they  did  not  know 
Jesus  Christ,  nor  yet  the  voices  of  the  prophets,  which  were 
read  every  Sabbath  day,  they  have  fulfilled  them  in  con- 
demning him." — Acts  xiii :  27.  Now,  how  is  this?  Why 
did  they  not  know  Jesus  Christ  ?  Why  did  they  not 
know  the  voices  of  the  prophets  ?  Had  they  not  all  the 
requisites  for  which  Mr.  Lard  contends?  This  same 
apostle  tell  us,  "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  of  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  because  they  are  foolishness 
unto  him,  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are 
spiritually  discerned." — 1  Cor.  ii :  14.  He  also  tells  us 
that,  "  If  our  Gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are 
lost,  in  whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the 
minds  of  them  that  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glo- 
rious Gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should 
shine  unto  them.'' — 2  Cor.  iv  :  3,  4.  And  again  he 
tells  us,  that,  "  God,  who  causeth  light  to  shine  out  of 
darkness,  hath  shined  into  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God,  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ."— 2  Cor.  iv  :  6. 

Mr.  Lard  asks:  "But  how  shall  we  secure  the  sinner's 
attention  ?"  and  then  adds  :  "  For  clearly,  according  to 
Mr.  Jeter,  this  is  the  chief  difficulty  in  the  way  of  his 
understanding  the  truth  ;  and  indeed,  according  to  our 
'scheme,'  if  we  are  to  believe  him,  it  would  seem  impos- 
sible." This  is  candid.  But  let  us  hear  Mr.  Lard  fur- 
ther : 

"  In  the  first  place,  we  shall  frankly  grant  that  our 
'  scheme '  makes  no  provision  to  secure  the  attention  of 


180  AN   EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

many  of  the  human  family.  AYe  mention  the  following 
examples  : 

"  1.  Such  as  loUl  not  come  to  Christ  that  they  might 
have  life. 

"  2.  Such  as  hate  the  light  and  will  not  come  to  it. 

"3.  Such  as  reject  the  counsel  of  God  against  them- 
selves. 

"4.  Such  as  judge  themselves  unworthy  of  eternal  life. 

"5.  Such  as  close  their  ears,  and  shut  their  eyes,  lest 
they  should  see,  and  hear,  and  be  converted. 

"6.  Such  as  will  not  attend  without  a  supernatural 
agency  of  the  Spirit.'' 

Reader,  do  you  not  ask,  "If  the  Campbellite  'scheme' 
has  made  no  provision  for  none  of  these  six  classes,  for 
whom  has  it  made  provision  ?"  Where  is  the  sinner  who 
is  not  embraced  in  one  or  the  other  of  these  classes?  If 
the  Campbellite  "  scheme  "  has  made  provision  for  any 
sinner  it  must  be  one  who  will  come  to  Christy  who  loves  the 
li(/ht,  who  yit-lds  to  the  counsd  of  God,  who  judges  him- 
self loorthy  of  eternal  life,  who  opens  his  eyes  and  ears, 
and  who  will  attend  without  any  supernatural  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  And  if  without  any  supernatural  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  any  agency  at  all  ;  for  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  no  other  agency.  But  can  such  a  sinner 
be  found  ?  If  such  can  be  found,  let  him  be  exhibited. 
He  will  be  a  "rara  avis."  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of 
him.  If  there  be  such  a  sinner,  I  should  like  to  know 
hoiv  he  came  to  be  a  sinner.  In  what  has  he  offended? 
What  is  his  condemnation?  Our  Savior  says:  "  This  is  the 
condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  but  men 
love  darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  are 
evil."  But  the  sinner  for  whom  the  Campbellite  "  scheme" 
makes  provision,  loves  light  rather  than  darkness  !    Then 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  181 

•what  is  his  condemnation  ?  The  Savior  says  :  "  He  that 
doeth  truth  cometh  to  the  light."  But  is  he  that  doeth 
the  truth  a  sinner?  There  is  no  such  a  sinner  as  the 
Campbellite  "scheme  "  provides  for.  It  makes  provision 
for  the  seventh  class  of  sinners  ;  but  behold,  there  is  no 
such  class! ! !  Then  it  makes  provision  for  none  !  This 
I  verily  believe. 

Of  the  six  classes  specified  by  Mr.  Lard,  he  proceeds 
to  say  : 

^'  For  securing  the  attention  of  these  classes,  we  are 
free  to  confess.,  our  'scheme'  makes  little  provision  ;  and 
we  shall  only  add,  the  Gospel  makes  none." 

Reader,  here  Mr.  Lard  begs  the  question.  But  we  will 
let  him  proceed : 

"No,  gentle  reader;  it  is  Mr.  Jeter^s  ^scheme'  that 
makes  provision  for  securing  the  attention  and  achiev- 
ing the  salvation  of  all  these  classes!  Has  it  not  bound- 
less claims  to  our  charity?" 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Mr.  Lard  has  spoken  ironi- 
cally here,  yet  he  has  told  the  truth.  One  of  our  school 
once  said  to  a  Baptist  Church,  "  Know  ye  not  that  the 
unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Be 
not  deceived ;  neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor 
adulterers,  nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves 
with  mankind,  nor  thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards, 
nor  revilers,  nor  extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God.  And  such  were  some  of  you ;  but  ye  are  washed, 
but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  These  are 
the  classes  that  our  "  scheme  "  makes  provision  for,  and 
by  it  many  of  them  are  snatched  as  "  brands  from  the 
burning." 

Mr.  Lard  finally  remarks  :  "  But  we  have  not  yet  an- 
swered the  question,  'How  shall  we  secure  the  sinner's 


182  AN    EXAMINATION   Of"  LARD's  REVIEW    OP 

attention  ?'  We  reply,  precisely  as  did  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  by  presenting  to  his  mind,  as  supremely  worthy 
of  his  attention,  immortality  and  eternal  life  ;  and  by 
showing  him  that  these  lie  completely  within  his  reach, 
on  condition  that  he  submit  to  the  Savior.  If  neither 
these,  nor  the  terrors  of  the  Lord,  move  him,  the  wrath 
of  Grod  rests  on  him,  and  he  is  lost.  Neither  reason  nor 
revelation  sanctions  any  other  mode  of  securing  the  sin- 
ner's attention." 

In  this  quotation  there  is  a  mixture  of  error  and  truth. 
We  can  secure  the  sinner's  attention  only  by  presenting 
such  things  as  are  calculated  to  secure  it  in  an  aflfection- 
ate  and  attractive  manner.  But  what  may  the  Spirit  of 
God  not  do  ?  If  immortality  and  eternal  life,  and  the 
terrors  of  the  Lord,  fail  to  move  men,  is  there  no  super- 
abounding  of  grace  ?  Will  God,  because  he  can  justly 
punish  the  sinner,  for  refusing  the  Gospel,  withhold  the 
gracious  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  Has  he  not  said 
to  his  Son,  "Ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  the  heathen  for 
thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth 
for  thy  possession  ?"  And  will  he  not  make  his  promise 
good  ?  Yes,  the  Savior  rests  secure  on  that  promise,  and 
he  says,  "All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to 
me,  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast 
out." 

When  Mr.  Lard  said,  "  Neither  reason  nor  revelation 
sanctions  any  other  mode  of  securing  the  sinner's  atten- 
tion," why  did  he  not  add,  "so  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned?" for  surely  he  can  not  say,  that  neither  reason 
nor  revelation  sanctions  any  other  mode  on  God's  part. 
Or  is  it  his  intention,  by  every  possible  mode  of  argu- 
ment, to  exclude  from  his  "  scheme  "  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  ?  I  wonder  if  Mr.  Lard  ever  did,  after  pre- 
senting to  his  congregation  "  immortality  and  eternal 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  183 

life,"  without  securing  their  attention,  go  from  his  pulpit 
to  the  throne  of  grace,  and  there  implore  the  aid  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  expecting  an  answer  to  his  prayer,  and  then 
return  to  the  work  with  a  stronger  hope  of  success.  If 
he  ever  did,  or  does,  he  does  not  believe  his  own  argu- 
ment. 

§5. 

Mr.  Lard  states  Mr.  Jeter's  third  objection  in  these 
words  :  "  Suppose  this  great  difficulty  obviated,  the  sin- 
ner's attention  arrested,  and  truth  brought  clearly  before 
his  mind,  would  knowledge  of  Divine  truth,  without  the 
special  influence  of  the  Spirit,  secure  his  conversion  ? 
To  which,  of  course,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "  the  answer  is. 
It  icould  not."     He  continues — 

"  Now,  we  reply,  if  Divine  truth,  when  known  or  under- 
stood, effects  not  the  conversion  of  the  sinner,  then  his 
conversion  is  provided  for  by  no  system  of  religion  which 
is  Divine." 

Then  stand  aside,  thou  Holy  Spirit !  Thou  didst  come 
into  the  world  by  virtue  of  the  ascension  and  acceptance 
of  the  Son  of  Grod  in  heaven,  to  '•  reprove  the  world  of 
sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  But  all  that 
Mr.  Lard  and  his  brethren  give  thee  credit  for,  or  allow 
thee  to  do,  was  done  by  thee  eighteen  hundred  years  ago. 
They  are  willing  to  admit  that  thou  didst  take  the  things 
which  are  Christ's  and  show  them  to  the  apostles,  and 
thus  furnish  the  truth  with  its  proper  evidences,  but  they 
will  not  allow  thee  to  do  anything  more  for  the  conver- 
sion of  men.  Mr.  Lard  and  his  confederates  say  they 
need  thee  not,  they  acknowledge  thee  not.  They  ascribe 
conversion  to  the  truth,  and  the  truth  alone.  But  do 
not  take  thy  flight  with  indignance  from  earth  because 
thy  influence  is  thus  ignored  by  him  and  them.     Stay 


184  AN    EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

with  US,  who  still  acknowledge  thy  agency,  who  need 
thy  influence,  and  feel  thy  power.  Our  hope  is  in  thee. 
We  dread  that  solemn  malediction  :  "  Cursed  is  man  that 
trusteth  in  man,  and  that  maketh  flesh  his  arm."  While 
we  "  plant,"  and  "water,"  we  look  to  thee  for  the  "in- 
crease ;"  and  in  every  case  of  conversion  we  hear  thy 
voice,  saying :  "Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but  by  my 
Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." 

Mr.  Lard  continues:  "After  propounding  the  preced- 
ing objection,  Mr.  Jeter  adds:  'If  ignorance  is  the  only 
evil  with  which  the  Gospel  has  to  contend,  then,  ob- 
viously, the  illumination  of  the  mind  is  all  that  is  neces- 
sary for  its  removal.  But  ignorance,  though  it  may  be 
in  itself  criminal,  is  rather  the  efi"ect  than  the  cause  of 
man's  depravity.  There  is  a  corrupt  disposition  which 
blinds  the  understanding.  "  This  is  the  condemnation, 
that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  dark- 
ness rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil." — 
John  iii :  19.  The  love  of  darkness,  which  signifies 
ignorance,  or  error,  is  the  very  root  of  man's  depravity. 
This  love  implies  an  aversion  to  light,  truth,  and  holi- 
ness, and  is  the  cause  of  the  prevalent  ignorance  of 
Divine  things  in  the  world.'  " 

Reader,  is  not  the  above  quotation  from  Mr.  Jeter  true? 
— every  word  of  it  true  ?  Yet  hear  what  Mr.  Lard  says 
by  way  of  reply  : 

"  The  love  of  ignorance,  then,  is  the  very  root  of  man's 
depravity :  a  love  which  implies  aversion  to  light,  truth, 
and  holiness,  and  is  the  cause  of  the  prevalent  ignorance 
of  Livine  things  in  the  world.  These  are  certainly  fear- 
ful results.  But  are  they  results  of  man's  depravity? 
We  shall  concede  for  the  present  that  they  are,  and  of 
that  inveterate  form  of  it  for  which  Mr.  Jeter  contends. 
Now,  is  man  the  author  of  this  form  of  depravity?     The 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed,  185 

present  generation  at  least  is  not,  since  it  is  inherited. 
Has  he  the  power  to  modify  its  intensity,  or  control  it  as 
a  cause?  Of  course,  he  has  not.  Is  he,  then,  respons- 
ible for  his  love  of  darkness,  his  aversion  to  light,  truth, 
and  holiness,  and  his  ignorance  of  Divine  things?  It  is 
impossible.  Indeed,  concede  the  existence  of  this  form 
of  depravity,  and  these  results  become  harmless  as  the 
sigh  of  the  wind.  And  this  is  a  legitimate  result  from 
Mr.  Jeter's  proposition.  Deny  it  as  he  will,  or  explain 
it  as  he  may,  still  it  follows.  Nor,  indeed,  is  this  all. 
The  real  conclusion  from  his  position  is,  that  man  is  the 
mere  creature  of  necessity,  with  no  more  power  to  avoid 
being  what  he  is,  or  doing  what  he  does,  than  a  stone  at 
rest  has  to  put  itself  in  motion.  We  advocate  no  'scheme' 
of  conversion,  certainly,  which  provides  a  remedy  for  a 
case  like  this,  alike  disgraceful  to  the  Author  of  man 
and  destructive  of  human  accountability." 

I  have  here  given  the  reader  the  full  benefit  of  Mr. 
Lard's  entire  paragraph  in  reply  to  Mr.  Jeter.  Let  us 
take  it  up,  item  by  item,  and  look  at  it  through  the  glass 
of  Divine  truth,  that  we  may  see  its  deformity. 

1.  "Now,  is  man  the  author  of  this  depravity?  The 
present  generation,  at  least,  is  not." 

Then,  what  follows?  that  the  present  generation  is  not 
responsible  for  it?  Let  us  see.  Let  it  never  be  forgot- 
ten that  depravity  consists  in  the  want  of  love,  or,  in 
other  words,  in  enmity  to  God.  Now,  if  there  is  any- 
thing which  God  has  a  right  to  require  of  his  creatures, 
it  is  that  they  supremely  love  him.  And  if  there  is  any- 
thing for  which  he  can  justly  punish  them,  it  is  for  their 
enmity  to  him.  There  is  nothing  unreasonable  or  unjust 
in  the  apostolic  aphorism ;  "  If  any  man  love  not  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be  anathema  maranatha." — 
1  Cor.  xv!  •  22.     But  this  enmity  to  God  did  not  begin 


186  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

with  this  generation.  It  did  not  even  begin  with  man. 
It  began  with  the  "angels  that  sinned,"  (2  Pet.  ii :  4,) 
"  that  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own  habita- 
tion."— Jude  vi.  Is  man  not  responsible  for  it,  there- 
fore ?     He  who  answers  "  No,"  replies  against  his  Maker, 

2.  "  Has  he  [man]  the  power  to  modify  its  intensity 
or  control  it  as  a  cause  ?     Of  course  he  has  not?" 

Now,  I  ask,  from  what  remark  or  position  of  Mr.  Je- 
ter's does  such  a  conclusion  as  this  follow?  Mr.  Lard 
should  have  defined  what  he  means  by  the  word  "  power" 
here.  If  he  confines  the  meaning  of  the  term,  as  he 
ought  to  do,  to  the  possession  of  memis,  then  man  has  the 
power.  But  if  he  extends  the  meaning  of  the  word  so 
as  to  include  disposition,  then  man  has  not  the  power. 
But  the  want  of  a  disposition,  as  I  have  already  shown, 
(see  §  2  of  the  third  chapter,)  does  not  excuse  the  sinner. 
Pharaoh  had  the  means  of  understanding  the  Divine 
mission  of  Moses,  and  through  him  the  Divine  claims, 
and  of  letting  Israel  go  :  but  he  had  not  the  disposition, 
therefore  he  neither  understood  the  one  nor  did  the 
other.  Will  Mr.  Lard  say  he  could  not?  Will  he  say 
he  was  not  responsihle  f  I  will  again  say,  that  as  vohtn- 
tary  action  depends  upon  the  possession  of  means  and  dis- 
liosition  both,  when  the  latter  is  wanting,  in  one  sense  it 
may  be  said  the  man  can  not  act;  i.  e.,  he  can  not  act  be- 
cause he  will  not  act.  A  covetous  man  may  be  a  mill- 
ionaire, but  more  than  money  is  wanting  to  cause  him 
cheerfully  to  relieve  the  wants  of  the  poor.  The  Bible 
makes  a  distinction  between  having  a  thing  in  thepoioer 
of  the  hand,  and  having  that  same  thing  in  the  power  of 
the  heart. — Compare  Prov.  iii :  27,  28,  and  1  Chron. 
xxviii :  2,  3.  Before  a  man  can  perform  any  Christian 
duty,  he  must  have  it  in  the  power  of  his  hand  and  heart 
both.     If  it  is  in  the  power  of  his  heart  only,  he  can 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed,  187 

not  do  it.  If  it  is  in  the  power  of  liis  hand  only,  he  will 
not  do  it.  Hence,  if  it  is  only  in  the  power  of  his  hand, 
there  is  a  sense  in  which  he  can^  and  also  a  sense  in  which 
he  can  not.  But  he  can  not  in  no  sense  affecting  his 
responsibility. 

When  Jesus  said  :  "  No  man  can  come  unto  me,  ex- 
cept the  Father  who  hath  sent  me  draw  him,"  he  spoke 
the  truth ;  and  when  he  said :  "  Ye  will  not  come  unto 
me  that  ye  might  have  life,"  he  also  spoke  the  truth  :  for 
the  latter  is  the  cause  of  the  former. 

The  apostle  Peter  speaks  of  some  who  have  "  eyes 
full  of  adultery,  and  that  can  not  cease  from  sin." — 
2  Peter  ii:  13.  Are  they,  then,  responsible?  Mr.  Lard's 
logic  would  say  they  are  not.  Isaiah  speaks  of  false 
watchmen  that  "can  not  understand;"  are  they  there- 
fore excusable?  And- Jeremiah  tells  us,  that  they  to 
whom  he  spoke  had  "  uncircumcised  ears  that  could  not 
hearken  ;"  were  they  therefore  guiltless? 

But,  then,  if  this  matter  did  not  begin  with  the  present 
generation,  can  it  be  held  responsible?  Let  us  suppose 
a  case  :  Suppose  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union  should 
rebel  against  the  Government,  and  suppose  that  before 
it  is  brought  back  to  its  allegiance,  two  or  three,  or  even 
more  generations  should  pass  away,  but  the  last  genera- 
tion should  plead,  that  as  the  rebellion  did  not  begin  with 
them,  they  were  not  responsible  for  it,  would  their  plea 
be  admitted?  Would  not  the  Government  respond  that 
though  the  "present  generation  "  might  not  be  respons- 
ible for  the  beginning  of  the  rebellion,  it  was  evidently 
responsible  for  its  perpetuity?  So  I  would  say  of  man's 
rebellion  against  God,  though  the  "present  generation" 
did  not  begin  it,  they  perpetuate  it,  and  for  this  they  are 
responsible.  Let  us  take  another  illustration,  which  will, 
perhaps,  be  more  striking  because  it  is  from  the  Scrip- 


188  AN    EXAMINATION  OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

tures :  The  Jews  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  rejected 
their  own  Messiah,  with  an  invocation  of  his  blood  upon 
themselves  and  their  children.  The  same  spirit  that  then 
cried  :  "  Away  with  him,  crucify  him,"  is  now  inherited 
by  their  children,  and  the  curse  is  still  upon  them  !  Is 
this  right?  May  not  the  present  generation  of  the  Jews, 
availing  themselves  of  Mr.  Lard's  philosophy,  say:  "This 
rejection  of  the  Messiah,  and  this  inveterate  hatred  of 
him,  did  not  'begin  '  with  us.  We  'inherited'  it  from 
our  fathers,  and  we  are  not  to  be  held  responsible  !  The 
'cause'  of  our  opposition  did  not  originate  with  us.  It 
comes  down  to  us  from  a  generation  long  past;  it  is  rooted 
and  grounded  in  us ;  therefore  blame  our  fathers,  but  don't 
blame  us !" 

In  this  case  what  would  Mr.  Lard  do  ?  Would  he  say 
to  the  Jews  :  "  You  are  right.  True,  you  love  darkness, 
you  have  an  aversion  to  '  light,  truth,  and  holiness,'  but 
it  did  not  begin  with  this  generation.  Go  your  way. 
True,  the  curse  of  God  invoked  by  your  fathers  is  still 
upon  you,  but  it  rests  there  unjustly  !''  I  can  not  sup- 
pose that  Mr.  Lard  would  say  this;  but  it  is  a  just  de- 
duction from  the  position  he  has  taken.  He  must  either 
plead  for  the  innocence  of  the  present  generation  of  the 
Jews,  or  recede  from  his  own  argument ! 

3.  "  Indeed,  concede  the  existence  of  this  [Jeter's] 
form  of  depravity,  and  these  results  become  as  harmless 
as  the  sigh  of  the  wind." 

That  is  to  say,  the  more  fully  set  man's  heart  is  upon 
wrong,  the  less  guilty  he  is  in  doing  wrong  !  Solomon 
says:  "Because  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not 
executed  speedily,  therefore  the  hearts  of  the  children 
of  men  are  fully  set  within  them  to  do  evil."  Are  they 
therefore  innocent,  Mr.  Lard? 

Mr.  Lard's  argument  amounts  to  this  :  If  man  is  but 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed,  189 

partially  alienated  from  God,  if  be  is  so  far  inclined  to 
good  that  he  needs  nothing  but  motives  to  bring  him  back, 
why,  then  he  is  respomihle.  But  if  his  heart  has  become 
so  fully  bent  on  evil,  so  set  against  God  as  to  need  a  gra- 
cious and  drawing  influence  of  the  Spirit  to  bring  him 
back,  why,  then,  his  evil  has  become  good!  "It  is  as 
Jiarmkss  as  the  sigh  of  the  icind  f  This  is  just  as  wise 
as  to  say  :  "  If  a  man  has  a  partial  enmity  to  his  fellow- 
man — if  he  is  so  far  inclined  to  love  his  neighbor  that  a 
word  of  exhortation  will  bring  him  to  duty,  he  is  guilty ; 
but  if  his  heart  is  wholly  given  to  misanthropy  and 
malice,  so  that  exhortations  have  lost  their  power  upon 
him,  why  then  all  his  acts  of  violence  and  wrong  toward 
his  fellows,  "  are  as  harmless  as  the  sigh  of  the  wind !" 
He  who  can  receive  this  let  him  receive  it. 

4.  "  The  real  conclusion,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "  from  his 
[Jeter's]  position  is,  that  man  is  the  mere  creature  of 
necessity,  with  no  more  power  to  avoid  being  what  he  is, 
or  doing  what  he  does,  than  a  stone  at  rest  has  to  put 
itself  in  motion." 

Create  difficulties  as  you  choose,  Mr.  Lard,  but  facts 
are  facts  notwithstanding.  Can  the  Jew  help  being  the 
successor  of  the  crucifiers  of  Jesus  ?  Is  he  the  cause  of 
that  envy  and  prejudice  which  delivered  him  to  Pilate? 
Is  it  not  of  necessity  that  he  belongs  to  a  "  scattered  and 
pealed  "  people  ?  Can  the  Mohammedan  help  his  birth 
and  education  ?  Is  it  not  of  necessity  that  he  has  his 
faith  in  Moslemism  ?  Are  there  not  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  the  heathen  involved  in  labyrinths  of  idolatry 
and  superstition,  entailed  upon  them  without  their  knowl- 
edge or  consent?  Disguise  it  as  you  may,  quarrel  with 
it  as  you  may,  a  wrong  is  a  wrong,  let  it  originate  when 
and  where  it  may.  And  he  who  perpetuates  it  is  as  re- 
sponsible as  he  who  began  it.     Said  Jesus  to  the  Phari- 


190  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD'S   REVIEW   OF 

sees  :  "  Woe  unto  you  !  for  ye  build  the  sepulchers  of 
the  prophets,  and  your  fathers  killed  them.  Truly  ye 
bear  witness  that  ye  alloio  the  deeds  of  your  fathers;  for 
they  indeed  killed  them,  and  ye  build  their  sepulchers." 
Therefore  also  said  the  wisdom  of  God:  "I  will  send 
them  prophets  and  apostles,  and  some  of  them  they  shall 
slay  and  persecute  ;  that  the  blood  of  all  the  prophets, 
which  was  shed  from  the  foundation  of  the  icorld,  may  be 
required  of  this  generation." — Luke  xi :  47-50.  Now, 
this  passage  clearly  teaches  that  the  sins  of  jyast  genera- 
tions become  our  own  when  we  alloio  them. 

While  Saul  of  Tarsus  believed  that  Jesus  was  an  im- 
postor, and  his  followers  deceivers  and  heretics,  and  to 
persecute  them  was  to  do  God  service,  could  he  do  other- 
wise than  persecute?  But  was  he  therefore  innocent? 
Though  Mr.  Lard  might  apologize  for  him,  and  say  :  "  As 
his  depravity  was  inherited,  and  his  opposition  to  Christ 
inveterate,  and  his  ignorance  of  Divine  things  the  result 
of  the  circumstances  of  his  birth  and  education,  he  was 
of  necessity  what  he  was  ;  all  his  virulence  and  his  breath- 
ings of  threatenings  and  slaughter  against  the  disciples, 
were  as  harmless  as  the  sigh  of  the  wind  :  for  he  no  more 
could  avoid  being  a  persecutor  than  a  stone  at  rest  can 
put  itself  in  motion."  But  Saul  would  tell  him  better. 
Methinks  he  would  say  :  "  Stop,  Mr.  Lard  ;  it  is  true  that 
I  was  alive  without  the  law  once;  I  was  in  my  own  esti- 
mation as  touching  the  law  blameless ;  and  I  thought 
then  that  I  ought  to  do  many  things  contrary  to  the 
name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  but  I  want  no  apology  offered 
for  me.  I  am  now  willing  to  confess  myself  the  chief  of 
sinners.  I  was  before  not  innocent,  as  you  would  repre- 
sent me,  but  a  persecutor,  a  blasphemer,  and  an  injurious 
person  ;  and  the  only  palliation  that  the  circumstances  of 
my  case  will  allow  is,  I  did  it  ignorantly  and  in  unbe- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  191 

lief.  This  makes  ray  sins — not  harmless  as  you  would 
represent — but,  just  pardonable  ;  that  is  all." 

5.  Mr.  Lard  says  :  "  We  advocate  no  '  scheme  '  of  con- 
version, certainly,  which  provides  a  remedy  for  a  case 
like  this,  alike  disgraceful  to  the  Author  of  man,  and  de- 
structive of  human  accountability." 

Now,  the  plain  English  of  this  is : 

1.  The  degree  of  depravity  for  which  Mr.  Lard  con- 
tends is  not,  but  the  degree  for  which  Mr.  Jeter  contends 
is  disgraceful  to  God.  Now,  how  did  he  find  that  out? 
Can  depravity  in  any  degree  be  disgraceful  to  God  un- 
less he  is  the  author  of  it  ?  If  he  is  the  author  of  it,  then 
depravity  in  the  smallest  degree  is  disgraceful  to  him. 
God  is  the  author  of  depravity  in  no  sense  nor  in  ani/  de- 
gree, and  therefore  his  character  can  not  be  affected  by 
it,  whatever  may  be  the  truth  in  regard  to  its  degree. 

2.  The  degree  of  depravity  for  which  Mr.  Lard  con- 
tends does  not,  but  the  degree  for  which  Mr.  Jeter  con- 
tends docs  destroy  human  accountability.  I  would  again 
ask,  how  did  Mr.  Lard  find  that  out?  The  idea  is  this  : 
an  innocent  being  is  accountahle.  Well,  this  innocent 
being  ceases  to  be  innocent.  The  guiltless  becomes 
guilty,  the  holy  becomes  unholy.  Now,  I  should  like  to 
know  how  depraved  he  must  become  before  he  ceases  to 
be  accountable?  How  far  must  he  go  before  he  crosses 
the  line  of  accountability?  Mr.  Lard  would  seem  to 
say,  he  may  hate  God  a  little  and  yet  be  accountable  ; 
•but  if  he  have  a  settled  and  fixed  hatred  he  ceases  to  be 
accountable !  A  little  depravity  is  very  criminal,  but  if 
it  become  "  inveterate"  why  it  becomes  "  harmless  as  the 
sigh  of  the  wind  !" 

Mr.  Lard's  objection  just  amounts  to  this  :  a  little  dis- 
honesty is  criminal,  but  a  great  deal  of  it  is  harmless  ! 
Man  is  accountable  for  a  little  disaffection  to  God,  but  if 


192  AN  EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

he  becomes  completely  alienated  he  ceases  to  be  so ! 
There  is  a  serpent  coiled  up  in  Mr.  Lard's  argument  here. 
While  he  seems  to  be  jealous  of  God's  honor  and  man's 
accountability,  he  stings  both.  His  argument  is  only 
the  reiteration,  but  in  another  form,  of  the  old  infidel 
question  :  "  Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  ?  Who  hath  re- 
sisted his  will?"  He  says  that  degree  of  depravity  for 
which  Mr.  Jeter  contends,  (and  which  I  shall  show  at 
the  proper  time  is  Scriptural,)  is  as  harmless  as  the  sigh 
of  the  wind.  Then,  of  course,  God  should  not  find  fault 
with  it.  He  says  it  teaches  that  man  can  no  more  avoid 
being  what  he  is,  than  a  stone  at  rest  can  put  itself  in 
motion.  Then,  of  course,  man  has  not  resisted  God's 
will  !  And  now,  though  I  have  replied  to  him  at  length, 
I  feel  that  Paul  has  furnished  the  best  (and  at  the  same 
time  a  most  significant)  reply,  and  I  here  record  it : 
"  Nay  but,  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest 
AGAINST  GOD?" — Rom.  ix  :  19,  20. 

If  Mr.  Lard's  "scheme,"  as  he  "frankly"  confesses, 
makes  no  provision  for  any  one  whose  "  heart  is  deceit- 
ful and  despe7'afeli/  Vficked,"  (Jer.  xvii :  9,)  if  it  can  not 
save  any  one  who  will  not  of  his  own  accord  receive  the 
truth,  without  any  drawings  from  God,  or  without  the 
Holy  Spirit  working  in  them  to  will  and  to  do,  then  his 
"  scheme  "  makes  provision  for  none.  Jesus  says  he 
"came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  losC  He 
came  "  not  to  call  the  righteous  but  sinners  to  repent- 
ance." His  "scheme"  reached  "publicans  and  harlots," 
yea,  even  "  fornicators,  idolaters,  adulterers,  effeminate, 
abusers  of  themselves  with  mankind,  thieves,  covetous, 
drunkards,  revilers,  and  extortioners." — 1  Cor.  vi :  11. 
But  Mr.  Lard  proposes  to  save  only  such  as  are  of  a  mere 
peccable  disposition.  These  gross  sinners  are  beyond 
his  reach ! !      I  fear  that  the  mere  peccable,  if  such  can 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  193 

be  found,  will  find  his  "  scheme  "  a  broken  reed.  They 
had  better  not  lean  upon  it. 

Mr.  Lard  complains  "  that  there  are  some  things  very- 
perverse  "  in  Mr.  Jeter's  ''  mode  of  treating  "  his  "  view 
of  conversion."  "  He  [Mr.  Jeter]  treats  it  as  if  faulty, 
because  it  makes  not  provision  to  overcome  every  conceiv- 
able obstacle  in  the  way  of  conversion  ;  and  yet  he  pre- 
sents a  no  more  feasible  plan."  He  continues  :  "  Does 
the  Christian  religion,  we  ask,  contemplate  the  removal 
of  all  obstacles  to  conversion,  and  hence  the  conversion 
of  all  ?" 

I  answer,  the  Gospel  scheme  of  conversion  yields  to 
no  obstacle  as  too  formidable  for  that  Divine  efficiency 
which  makes  the  Savior's  "  people  willing  in  the  day  of 
his  power." — Psalm  ex:  3.  And  the  "Christian  re- 
ligion "  contemplates  the  removal  of  all  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  conversion,  except  where  it  is  limited  by  the  sov- 
ereignty of  God.  (Rom.  ix  :  15,  24.)  But  Mr.  Lard's 
"  scheme  "  of  conversion  leaves  every  sinner  to  perish  in 
his  sins.     Hear  him  : 

"  But  we  do  maintain  that  every  removable  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  conversion  not  only  may  be  made  to  yield, 
but  that  it  actually  does  yield,  when  it  yields  at  all,  (o 
the  truth  and  to  the  truth  alone.  The  inherent  brilliant 
light  of  the  truth,  its  searching  heat  and  power,  no  ob- 
stacle can  withstand,  save  the  voluntary  and  deliberate 
resistance  of  man.  And  against  this  resistance  no  pro- 
vision can  be  made.^'^ 

There  are  just  two  points  in  the  above  quotation  to 
which  I  would  call  the  reader's  attention,  and  close  this 
number  : 

1.  "  Obstacles,  where  they  yield  at  all,  yield  to  the 

*  Emphasis  mine. — W. 


194         AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

truth  alone.''''     Then,  of  course,  they  never  yield  to  the 
Holy  Spirit ! 

2.  "Against  the  voluntary  and  deliberate  resistance  of 
man  no  provision  can  be  made."  Then  against  what 
kind  of  resistance  can  provision  be  made  ?  I  know  of 
no  resistance  that  is  not  voluntary  and  deliberate.  Now, 
as  these  two  terms  characterize  the  resistance  which  every 
sinner  offers  to  the  Grospel,  and  as  Campbellism,  according 
to  Mr.  Lard,  not  only  makes  no  provision  for  its  removal, 
but  denies  that  any  can  be  made,  of  course  it  should  ac- 
knowledge its  impotency  and  retire  from  the  field. 

§6. 

Mr.  Jeter's  fourth  objection  : 

'■'■The  theory  under  discussion  is  contradicted  by  numerous 
well-authenticated  facts." 

"  In  proof  of  which,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "  Mr.  Jeter  pre- 
sents first  this  'fact:'  'If  all  the  converting  power  of  the 
Spirit  is  in  the  arguments  addressed  by  him  in  words  to 
the  mind,  then  it  follows  that  every  minister  of  the  Word 
must  be  successful  in  converting  souls  to  Christ,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  distinctness  with  which  he  presents  the 
arguments  of  the  Spirit  to  the  minds  of  his  hearers. 
The  same  measure  of  power  must,  under  similar  circum- 
stances, produce  similar  results.  But  does  this  conclu- 
sion agree  with  the  experience  and  observation  of  Chris- 
tian ministers  ?'  " 

"We  reply,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "if  the  power  be  uni- 
form, and  the  circumstances  precisely  similar,  then  the 
results  will  be  so  too.  N^oiv,  we  maintain  that  the  con- 
verting poiver  is  in  the  truth,  and  hence,  that  the  power  is 
uniform." 

I  have  emphasized  that  part  of  Mr.  Lard's  reply  to 
which  I  wish  to  call  the  reader's  special  attention.     Mr. 


JKTEU's   CAMPUKLLISII    EXPOSEt).  195 

Liird  here  fully  adtnits  tlsat  he  and  his  brethren  believe 
and  "  maintain  "  that  "a/r'  the  converting  power  of  the 
Spirit  is  "  in  the  arguments  addressed  by  bim  to  the 
mind  ;"  or  "in  the  truth,"  as  Mr.  Lard  prefers  to  express 
it.  Then,  of  course,  as  the  Holy  Spirit  has  put  all  his 
converting  pov/er  into  the  truth,  he  is  now,  so  far  as  con- 
version is  concerned,  jJo?(jfr-LESS !  Why,  then,  does  Mr. 
Lard  say,  in  his  "proposition,"  in  conversion:  "■He  oper- 
ates?"     Can  a  powerless  agent  operate ? 

A  second  "fact"  presented  by  Mr.  Jeter,  in  support 
of  his  objection,  according  to  Mr.  Lard,  is  this  :  "Christ 
was  an  unrivaled  preacher  of  the  Gospel.  (Mark  1:1.) 
'Never  man  spake  as  he  did.'  =!<>!:*  But  what  was 
the  result  of  his  ministry  ?  It  was  unsuccessful — not 
wholly  so — but  it  produced  no  such  results  as  from  his 
pre-eminent  qualifications  might  have  been  expected  ;  no 
great  moral  revolution,  and  no  extensive  revival  of  true 
religion." 

This  fact  Mr.  Lard  admits  ;  but  how  does  he  account 
for  it?  He  says  the  Savior  ascribed  it,  among  others,  to 
the  following  causes  : 

1.  "This  people's  heart  is  waxed  gross,"  etc. 

2.  "  Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed 
me,"  etc. 

3.  "  How  can  ye  believe  who  receive  honor  one  of  an- 
other?" etc. 

4.  "  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have 
life,"  etc. 

"  But,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "  among  all  the  causes  did  ha 
ever  once  mention  a,  loant  of  power  in  the  truth  T' 

I  would  reply  by  asking,  has  not  Mr.  Lard  already  told 
us  that  the  "  voluntary  and  deliberate  resistance  of  men," 
can  '^  witlistand"  the  '■'■power''  of  the  truth?  Now,  as 
Jesus  Christ,  according  to  Mr.  Lard,  employed  no  power 


196         AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

but  that  of  the  truth  to  overcome  this  '^  resistance,"  as 
he  failed  to  overcome  it,  to  what  else  could  he  ascribe  it 
but  to  the  "want  of  power  in  the  truth?" 

But  how  does  Mr.  Jeter  account  for  the  Savior's  fail- 
ure ?     Mr.  Lard  quotes  him  as  saying  : 

"jTAe  converting  power  of  the  Spirit  was  not  jJresent — 
was  withheld  in  ivisdom  and  righteous  judgment.'^ 

This  horrifies  Mr.  Lard.     He  says  : 

"  We  blush  for  the  pen  that  drew  this  libel  upon  the 
Divine  character." 

A  man  should  first  be  very  sure  he  is  right  before  he 
expresses  himself  as  Mr.  Lard  has  here  done.  Has  Mr. 
Jeter  here  drawn  a  "-libel"  upon  the  Divine  character? 
Keader,  turn  to  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  by  John, 
and  examine  it  carefully,  and  then  judge  between  Mr. 
Jeter  and  Mr.  Lard.  In  this  chapter,  one  of  our  Savior's 
most  important  and  impressive  discourses  is  recorded. 
He  delivered  it  to  the  multitude  who  sought  him  on  ac- 
count of  the  "  loaves  and  fishes"  with  which  he  had  just 
miraculously  fed  them.  ;  but  it  did  not  make  one  solitary 
convert.  Now,  to  what  cause  does  our  Savior  ascribe  this 
fact?  Verses  36  and  37  answer.  "  But  I  said  unto  you 
that  ye  also  have  seen  me  and  believe  not.  All  that  the 
Father  givefh  me  shall  come  to  9nc."  Again,  verses  43 
and  44  say  :  "  Jesus  therefore  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  Murmur  not  among  yourselves.  jVo  man  can 
come  to  me  except  the  Father  ivho  hath  sent  me  draw 
him.''''  And  again,  verses  64  and  65  say  :  "  There  are 
some  of  you  that  believe  not.  *  ?>  ^  Therefore  said 
I  unto  you,  that  no  man  can  come  unto  me.,  except  it  were 
given  unto  him  of  iny  Father.^' 

Now  all  these  verses  teach  the  following  facts  : 

1.  This  multitude  were  not  converted  by  the  Savior's 
preaching,  though  he  preached  to  them  the  truth. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  197 

2.  The  reason  assigned  by  the  Savior  is,  the  Father  did 
not  give  them  to  him.     He  did  not  draw  them. 

3.  Therefore,  for  this  reason  they  could  not  come  to 
him. 

Will  Mr.  Lard  call  this  a  "  libel  upon  the  Divine  char- 
acter ?"  Will  he  "  blush  for  the  pen  that  drew  "  it.  And 
now  note  particularly  the  "truth"  was  present  here,  but 
the  Divine  drawing  was  not  present.  Then  the  Divine 
drawing  is  something  distinct  from  the  truth.  Note  again, 
this  Divine  drawing  was  withheld.  Now,  how  and  why 
was  it  withheld  ?  Mr.  Jeter  answers,  "  in  wisdom  and 
righteous  judgment."  This,  as  before  remarked,  horri- 
fies Mr.  Lard.  Well,  I  can  not  help  it.  He  can  not 
deny  the  fact.  Then  let  him  account  for  it  as  best  he 
can.     I  am  satisfied  with  Mr.  Jeter's  answer. 

I  must  direct  the  reader's  attention  to  one  more  pas- 
sage. (Luke  iv  :  16-22.)  "And  he  came  to  Nazareth 
where  he  had  been  brought  up  :  and,  as  his  custom  was, 
he  went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
stood  up  to  read.  And  there  was  delivered  unto  him  the 
book  of  the  prophet  Isaiah.  And  when  he  had  opened 
the  book,  he  found  the  place  where  it  was  written :  The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  hath  anointed 
me  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  poor :  he  hath  sent  me  to 
heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  deliverance  to  the 
captives,  and  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at 
liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to  preach  the  acceptable 
year  of  the  Lord.  And  he  closed  the  book  and  gave  it 
again  to  the  minister,  and  sat  down.  And  the  eyes  of  all 
them  that  were  in  the  synagogue  were  fastened  on  him. 
And  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  This  day  is  this  Scrip- 
ture fulfilled  in  your  ears.  And  all  bare  him  witness,  and 
wondered  at  the  gracious  words  that  proceeded  out  of  his 
mouth." 


198  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

Now,  may  we  not  suppose  that  the  sermon  the  Savior 
preached  on  this  occasion  was  most  exquisite  and  inimi- 
table ?  But  what  was  its  eflfect  ?  Did  it  make  a  single 
convert?  Not  one.  His  hearers  only  reproached  him 
with  his  humble  origin.  "  Ts  not  this  Joseph's  son  ?" 
Now,  how  did  Jesus  account  for  his  failure  ?  Hear  his 
own  words  :  "And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye  will  surely  say 
unto  me  this  proverb:  Physician,  heal  thyself ;  whatsoever 
we  have  heard  done  in  Capernaum,  do  also  here  in  thy 
country.  And  he  said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  No  prophet 
is  accepted  in  his  own  country.  But  I  tell  you  of  a  truth, 
many  widows  were  in  Israel  in  the  days  of  Elijah,  when 
the  heaven  was  shut  up  for  three  years  and  six  months, 
when  great  famine  was  throughout  all  the  land  ;  but  unto 
none  of  them  was  Elijah  sent,  save  unto  Sarepta,  a  city 
of  Sidon,  unto  a  woman  that  was  a  widow.  And  many 
lepers  were  in  Israel  in  the  days  of  Elisha  the  prophet ; 
and  none  of  them  was  cleansed  save  Naaman  the 
Syrian." 

In  this  answer,  we  see  a  delicate  allusion  to  the  doc- 
trine of  sovereign  discriminating  grace.  In  the  days  of 
Elijah,  God  selected  one  widow  out  of  many.  And  in 
the  days  of  Elisha,  God  selected  one  leper  out  of  many. 
And  so  now  "  there  is  a  remnant  according  *o  the  elec- 
tion of  grace."  Here  was  a  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy, 
"  Though  the  children  of  Israel  be  as  the  sand  of  the  sea, 
yet  a  remnant  shall  be  saved." 

This  doctrine  may  fill  Mr.  Lard  with  wrath,  but  this 
does  not  prove  it  to  be  untrue.  So  it  did  them  of  the 
synagogue.  And  they  thrust  out  the  Divine  preacher, 
and  would  have  cast  him  down  headlong  over  the  cliff, 
or  brow  of  the  hill,  whereon  their  city  was  built,  had 
he  not  passed  through  their  midst  and  gone  his  way, 
(V.  28,  29.) 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  199 

And  wbatevcr  may  be  the  feeling  Mr.  Lard  may  expe- 
rience, while  contemplating  this  sentiment,  our  Divine 
Lord  will  say,  "  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the 
wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes  ; 
even  so,  Father,  because  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight." 
— Luke  X  :  21. 

From  the  foregoing,  the  reader  can  see  that  Mr.  Jeter's 
objection  is  fully  sustained,  and  that  Mr.  Lard  has  failed 
— utterly  failed — to  meet  it. 

Let  us  pass  to  Mr.  Jeter's  fifth  objection  : 

"J//-.  CampheWs  theory  of  the  Spirit's  injluence  is  rncom- 
pailhle  ^vith  prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sinners^ 

I  do  not  know  th.it  I  can  do  the  reader  a  better  service 
than  to  lay  before  him  all  that  Mr.  Lard  has  said  by  way 
of  reply  to  this  objection,  and  add  a  few  brief  remarks  by 
way  of  comment.     He  proceeds  as  follows  : 

1.  "  Has  God  but  one  way  in  which  he  can  answer 
prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sinners — to  wit,  through  an 
injiuence  of  the  Spirit,  distinct  from  and  above  that  of  the 
truth?  If  not,  then  the  objection  is  void.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's theory  is  certainly  incompatible  with  prayer  for  the 
conversion  of  sinners  through  a  '  supernatural  agency' 
but  not  with  prayer  for  their  conversion,  in  any  way  in 
which  conversion  ever  happened." 

In  the  above,  the  emphasis  is  Mr.  Lard's.  Now,  let  the 
reader  note  one  thing  Mr.  Lard  impliedly  admits — the  va- 
lidity of  Mr.  Jeter's  objection,  if  God  converts  the  sinner 
by  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  the  truth.  But 
he  calls  the  objection  ''  void,"  becau.se  he  denies  such  an 
influence  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion.  And  he  frankly 
admits  that  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  conversion  is  in- 
compatible with  prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sinners 
through  a  supernatural  agency.     And  now.  be  it  remem- 


200  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

bered,  that,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  has  any  agency  at  all  in  the 
conversion  of  sinners,  it  is  necessarily  a  supernatural  one; 
and  if  he  operates  in  conversion  at  all,  his  operation  is 
something  disthict  from  truth,  and  hence  Mr.  Lard  has 
here  plainly  denied  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  con- 
version. 

But  let  us  hear  him  further : 

2.  "  Mr.  Jeter  is  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  manner 
in  vrhich  our  heavenly  Father  answers,  where  he  does 
so  at  all,  the  prayers  of  his  children.  We  know  not  what 
we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought,  and  surely  much  less  the 
manner  in  which  these  prayers  are  replied  to.  It  is 
enough  for  us  to  know,  that  a  '  prayer  for  all  men  '  has 
been  made  a  duty.  Hence  we  pray  for  them,  not  because 
it  happens  to  be  compatible  with  some  theory,  however 
wise,  but  because  God  has  made  it  our  duty  to  do  so. 
All  beyond  a  conscientious  discharge  of  our  duty  we 
leave  with  Him  who  works  all  things  after  the  counsel 
of  his  will.  That  he  does,  in  the  way  which  to  him 
seems  best,  answer  or  not  these  prayers,  as  they  happen 
to  accord  or  not  with  his  gracious  plans,  and  to  be  for 
the  good  of  his  erring  children,  we  profoundly  believe. 
When,  now,  Mr.  Jeter  undertakes  to  set  Mr.  Campbell's 
'  theory  of  the  Spirit's  influence  '  aside,  after  having  so 
signally  failed  to  do  so  in  other  ways,  by  an  objection 
based  on  his  profound  ignorance  of  the  manner  in  which 
God  answers  prayers,  he  compliments  neither  his  head 
nor  his  heart." 

Now,  reader,  can  you  make  anything  out  of  the  above 
quotation  ?     I  can  make  only  two  things  out  of  it : 

1.  Mr.  Lard  can  see  no  compatibility  between  prayer 
for  the  conversion  of  sinners,  and  his  or  Mr.  Campbells 
theory  of  conversion,  for  he  had  made  no  eifurt  to  show 
any.      Had  Mr.   Lard  seen    any  clearance   to  make   it 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  201 

appear  that  there  is  any  compatibility  between  his  "  the- 
ory" and  prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sinners,  he  most 
certainly  would  have  made  the  effort  ;  for  he  shows  too 
much  feeling  to  remain  silent  if  he  had  anything  to  say. 

2.  Mr.  Lard  has  mistaken  the  ground  on  which  Mr. 
Jeter  bases  this  objection.  He  says  he  "  bases  it  on  his 
profound  ignorance  of  the  manner  in  which  God  an- 
swers prayer  ;"  when  every  one  else  but  he  can  see  that 
Mr.  Jeter  bases  it  upon  the  incompatibility  of  the 
Campbellite  theory  of  conversion  with  prayer  for  the 
conversion  of  sinners  ! 

3.  "  There  is  no  duty  upon  the  propriety  and  necessity 
of  which  Christian  men  are  more  cordially  agreed,  than 
that  of  frequent  fervent  prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sin- 
ners. Any  system  of  religion  which  should  ignore  it, 
would  be  justly  exposed  to  the  derision  of  all  good  men. 
Mr.  Jeter  knew,  and  admits,  reluctantly  we  fear,  that 
Mr.  Campbell  and  his  brethren  believe  in  and  practice 
this  duty.  And  yet  he  wished  to  expose  us,  as  a  denomi- 
nation, to  the  odium  which  he  knew  could  attach  to  a 
people  only  who  repudiate  the  duty  ;  and  this  he  sought 
to  do  by  an  effort  to  make  it  appear  that  our  '  theory  '  of 
Spiritual  influence  is  '  incompatible  '  with  prayer  for 
the  conversion  of  sinners.  There  is  not  a  more  unmanly 
thing  in  his  books,  numerous  as  such  things  ai-e,  than 
the  preceding  objection.  But  in  a  work  written  to  insult 
and  not  to  refute,  we  could  expect  nothing  better." 

Reader,  I  have  now  given  you  everything  Mr.  Lard 
has  said  in  reference  to  this  fifth  objection  of  Mr.  Je- 
ter's. And  now  let  me  ask  you  if  there  is  the  first  thing 
said  by  Mr.  Lard  that  answers  the  objection?  If  there 
is,  it  has  wholly  escaped  my  notice.  It  is  true  that  Mr. 
Lard  says  :  "  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  brethren  practice  the 
duty  of  praying  for  the  conversion  of  sinners,  but  that 


202  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's  REVIEW   OF 

is  no  proof  of  the  compatibility  of  their  theory  of  con- 
version with  it.  The  following  facts  will,  I  think,  show 
to  a  demonstration  that  their  "theory"  is  incompatible 
with  prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sinners. 

1.  We  have  already  seen  that,  according  to  their  theory, 
all  the  converting  power  is  now  in  the  truth.  Let  nie 
again  quote  from  the  eighty-third  page  of  Mr.  Lani's 
book  : 

"  Divine  iritfh  is  itself  the  vital  power  hy  which,  in  all 
cases,  the  Spirit  effects  conversion  ;  in  other  words,  that 
the  Spirit  spends  on  the  mind  of  the  sinner,  in  conver- 
sion, no  ivfiiicnce  coccept  such  os  resides  in  the  truth  as 
Divine,  as  of  the  Spirit.  And  we  shall  further  add,  that 
neither  in  quantity,  nor  in  force,  do  we  conceive  that  this 
influence  can  be  increased  and  the  human  will  be  left 
free." 

Now,  let  any  man,  if  he  can,  make  the  sentiments  here 
uttered,  compatible  with  prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sin- 
ners. When  a  Campbellite  prays  to  God  for  the  conver- 
sion of  sinners,  what  does  he  ask  or  expect  God  to  do? 
He  expects  no  new  revelation  of  truth.  He  expects  no 
new  addition  or  increase  of  influence  or  force  to  be  given 
to  the  truth  already  revealed.  He  expects  nothing  to 
be  done  for  the  disposition  or  will  of  the  sinner.  Then 
what  does  he  expect  God  to  do  in  the  premises?  Noth- 
ing whatever,  as  I  can  see.  Here,  then,  is  incompati- 
bility. 

2.  Mr.  Lard,  as  we  have  seen,  (chapter  ii,  §  1,)  denies 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  sinner  to  pray  for  his  own  conver- 
sion. And  he  says,  the  position  that  he  should,  is  one 
of  the  gross  and  fatal  delusions  of  Protestants — that  is  a 
shame  to  the  Baptist  denomination  that  it  should  hohl 
and  teach  it — and  that  he  has  the  most  painful  appre- 
hension as  to  the  fate  of  those  who  hold  and  teach  the 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  203 

doctrine.  And  though  the  sinner  may,  day  after  day,  and 
■week  after  week,  and  even  year  after  year,  repeat  it,  it  is 
Btill  a  ^-/ruifless  prayer."  Then  how  can  it  be  compatible 
for  him  and  his  brethren  to  pray  for  it?  Can  it  be  right 
for  hini  to  ask  God  to  do  for  the  sinner  what  the  sinner 
should  not  ask  God  to  do  for  himself? 

3.  According  to  Mr.  Lard  and  Mr.  Campbell,  the  sin- 
ner can  not  be  converted  unless  he  is  baptized.  Let  us 
hear  Mr.  Campbell.  In  •'  Christianity  Restored^''  pp.  200 
and  201,  we  read  : 

"But  the  second  discourse,  recorded  by  Luke,  from 
the  lips  of  the  same  Peter,  pronounced  in  Solomon's 
Portico,  is  equally  pointed,  clear,  and  full  in  support  of 
this  position.  After  he  had  explained  the  miracle  which 
he  had  wrought  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  stated 
the  same  Grospel  facts,  he  proclaims  the  same  command : 
'  Reform  and  be  converted  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out ;'  or,  '  Reform  and  turn  to  God,  that  your  sins  may 
be  blotted  out ;  that  seasons  of  refreshment  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  may  come,  and  that  he  may  send 
Jesus,  whom  the  heavens  must  receive  till  the  accom- 
plishment of  all  the  things  which  G-od  has  foretold,'  etc. 
Peter,  in  substituting  other  terms  in  this  proclamation 
for  those  used  on  Pentecost,  does  not  preach  a  new  Gos- 
pel, but  the  same  Gospel  in  terms  equally  strong.  He 
uses  the  same  word  in  the  first  part  of  the  command 
which  he  used  on  Pentecost.  Instead  of  '  he  immersed,^ 
he  has  here  '■he  converted^'  or  '■  farn  to  God;''  instead  of 
'■fur  the  remission  of  sins,^  here  it  is,  ^that  your  sins  may  he 
blotted  Old ;'  and  instead  of,  ''you  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,'  here  it  is,  '  that  seasons  of  refreshment  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord  may  come.'  On  Pentecost  it 
was:  1.  'Reform;'  2.  'Be  immersed;'  3.  'For  remis- 
sion of  sins  ;'  and  4.  '  You  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 


204  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

Holy  Ghost.'  la  Solomon's  Portico  it  was  :  1.  'Reform;' 
2.  '  Be  converted ;'  3.  '  That  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out;'  and  4.  'That  seasons  of  refreshment  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  may  come,'  that  '  you  may  have 
righteousness,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit.'  So 
read  the  different  clauses  in  those  two  discourses  to  the 
Jews,  expressive  of  the  same  acts." 

>i<  *  *  "  Why  the  apostle  Peter  should  have  used 
'  converted,'  or  '  turning  to  God,'  instead  of  '  be  im- 
mersed,' is,  to  the  candid  and  unprejudiced  reader  of 
this  narrative,  very  plain.  After  Pentecost  the  disciples 
immersed  on  that  day  having  turned  to  God  through 
Jesus,  were  spoken  of  by  their  brethren  as  disciphd  or 
converted  to  Jesus.  The  unbelieving  Jews,  soon  after 
Pentecost,  knew  that  the  disciples  called  the  immersed 
*  converted  ;'  and  immersion  being  the  act  of  faith,  which 
drew  the  line  of  demarcation  between  Christians  and 
Jews,  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  to  call  the 
act  of  immersion  the  converting  of  the  Jew.  The  time 
intervening  between  these  discourses  was  long  enough 
to  introduce  and  familiarize  this  style  in  the  metropolis, 
so  that  when  the  Christian  said,  '  6e  converted/  or  ^turn 
to  God,'  every  Jew  knew  the  act  of  putting  on  the  Mes- 
siah to  be  that  intended,"  i.  e.,  immersion. 

Here  every  reader  can  see  that  conversion  with  Mr. 
Campbell  means  immersion. 

Mr.  Lard  says  of  conversion  :  "It  comprehends  all  that 
made  the  difference  between  the  alien  and  the  baptized 
person,  and  hence,  of  course,  baptism  itself."  He  there- 
fore contends,  that  "conversion  and  baptism  must,  to  a 
certain  extent  at  least,  be  identical."  He  also  says: 
"  Baptism  is  that  part  of  turning  to  God,  which  the  word 
conversion  more  especially  applies  to."  Now,  I  contend 
that  if  baptism  is  a  part  of  that  whole  process  of  turn- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  205 

ing  to  God,  which  we  call  conversion,  if  it  is  at  all  ?V7e/i- 
tical  with  conversion,  why  then,  no  one  can  be  converted 
without  baptism  ;  and  hence,  to  convert  a  man,  we  should 
not  pray  for  him,  but  baptize  him  ! 

Now,  take  the  three  reasons  I  have  given,  and  do  they 
not  demonstrate  that  the  Campbellite  theory  of  Divine 
influence  and  conversion,  is  incompatible  with  prayer 
for  the  conversion  of  sinners?  And  now  I  would  say 
to  Mr.  Lard,  and  all  other  Campbellites,  that  I  do  not 
thus  argue  to  cast  "odium"  upon  them,  nor  to  "insult" 
them,  but  to  convince  them  that  Mr.  Jeter's  objection  is 
well  founded,  and  that  they  should  yield  to  its  force  and 
abandon  their  untenable  position  on  the  subject  of  con- 
version and  Divine  influence.  They  acknowledge  (and 
I  am  gratified  that  they  do)  the  obligation  of  prayer  for 
the  conversion  of  sinners;  and  now  let  them  feel  that 
this  very  fact  requires  that  they  believe  in  the  '■'super- 
natural agency  of  the  Holy  Sjiirit  in  conversioii." 

§7. 

Mr.  Lard  states  Mr.  Jeter's  sixth  objection  thus : 

"7)/r.  CampbelVs  theory  of  conversion  is  inconsistent  toith 
the  introduction  of  the  millennium.^' 

Mr.  Lard  remarks  :  "  In  support  of  this  objection,  Mr. 
Jeter  has  written  some  seven  pages;  and  yet  in  not  one 
line  of  the  seven,  has  he  furnished  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  his  objection  states  the  truth.  It  is  an  objection  of  a 
piece  with  one  immediately  preceding  it,  [see  last  section,] 
strictly,  an  objection  based  on  his  ignorance.  It  amounts 
to  this  :  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  conversion  is  inconsist- 
ent with  something  of  which  little  or  nothing  is  known  !" 

I.  Is  it  true  that  "not  one  line  of  the  seven"  pages 
written  by  Mr.  Jeter,  furnishes  not  "  a  particle  of  evi- 
dence that  this  objection  states  the  truth  ?"     This  ques- 


206  AN    EXAMINATION  OF    LARD'S    REVIEW    OP 

tion  is  determined  by  another,  namely :  "  Has  Mr.  Jeter 
given  us  a  true  definition  of  the  millennium?"  I  will 
answer  this  question  presently. 

II.  Mr.  Lard  says  this  "objection  "  is  "  based"  on  Mr. 
Jeter's  ignorance ;  or  "  something  of  which  little  or  noth- 
ing is  known."  Be  it  remembered,  Mr.  Jeter  quotes  Mr. 
CampheWs  definition  of  the  millennium  ;  hence,  Mr.  Lard 
here  reproaches  liim  as  well  as  Mr.  Jeter.  And,  by  the 
way,  he  does  no  great  credit  to  himself,  for  he  evidently 
shows  that  he,  at  least,  knows  "  little  or  nothing  "  about 
the  millennium  !  and  is,  therefore,  incompetent  to  judge 
or  write  in  the  premises !  And  yet  he  moclestly  differs 
from  Mr.  Campbell,  pronounces  Mr.  Jeter  wrong,  and 
intimates  that  the  millennium  will  be  introduced  by 
"magnetism  or  submarine  telegraphs  !" 

Reader,  let  us  now  take  up  the  question  :  Has  Mr. 
Jeter  given  us  a  true  definition  of  the  millennium? 

Mr.  Jeter  says :  "  I  will  permit  him  [Mr,  Campbell] 
to  define  what  I  mean  by  the  millennium:  'There  is 
reason,  clear,  full,  and  abundant,  to  justify  the  expecta- 
tion, that  the  reign  of  favor,  or  the  government  of  Jesus 
Christ,  shall  embrace,  under  its  most  salutary  influences, 
the  whole  human  race  ;  or  that  there  are  plain,  literal, 
and  unfigurative,  as  well  as  figurative  and  symbolic  rep- 
resentations, in  both  Testaments,  which  authorize  us  to 
expect  a  very  general  spread  of  evangelical  influences, 
so  that  the  whole  race  of  men,  for  a  long  period  of  time, 
shall  bask  in  the  rays,  and  rejoice  in  the  vivifying  power 
of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness.' — Mill.  Har.,  vol.  i,  p.  54. 
This  consummation,  described  in  the  glowing  language 
of  prophecy,  has  been  the  grand  object  of  the  hopes, 
prayers,  and  labors  of  the  saints  in  all  ages.  Whatever 
contributes  to  hasten  this  glorious  period  must,  if  its 
tendency  is  perceived,  awaken  universal  delight  among 


Jeter's  campbellisji  exposed.  207 

the  lovers  of  Christ.  Every  principle,  theory,  or  prac- 
tice,  which  is  inharmonious  with  its  introduction,  is 
erroneous." 

Reader,  is  not  all  this  correct?  Let  the  following  por- 
tions of  Holy  Writ  answer : 

1.  Eev.  XX  :  1-G,  inclusive.  [I  must  request  the  reader 
to  do  me  and  himself  the  favor  of  reading  the  passages 
I  note.  It  would  require  too  much  space  to  transcribe 
all  of  them.]  Here  we  see  that  the  "  old  Serpent,"  in 
other  places  called  "the  Devil,"  and  "Satan,"  is  to  be 
bound  a  thousand  years,  during  which  time  a  glorious 
state  of  things  is  to  be  experienced  and  enjoyed  by  the 
people  of  God.     To  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets. 

2.  Isaiah  ii:  2-4,  inclusive:  "And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  in  the  last  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's 
house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains, 
and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills  ;  and  all  nations 
shall  flow  into  it.  And  many  people  shall  go  and  say, 
Come  ye,  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord, 
to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob;  and  he  will  teach  us 
of  his  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  his  paths  :  for  out  of 
Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord 
from  Jerusalem.  And  he  shall  judge  among  the  nations, 
and  shall  rebuke  many  people  :  and  they  shall  beat  their 
swords  into  plowshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning- 
hooks  :  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation, 
neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more."  This  passage 
needs  no  comment.  Its  full  realization,  during  the  reign 
of  the  Messiah,  no  Christian  can  doubt.  We  look  for 
this  blessed  state  of  things  during  the  millennium. 

3.  Psalm  Ixxii.  Read  the  whole  psalm.  Note  partic- 
ularly the  following  passages :  "  In  his  days  shall  the 
righteous  flourish;  and  abundance  of  peace  so  long  as 
the  moon  endureth.     He  shall  have  dominion  from  sea 


208  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  *  *  * 
His  name  shall  endure  forever;  his  name  shall  be  con- 
tinued as  long  as  the  sun  :  and  men  shall  be  blessed 
in  him :  all  nations  shall  call  him  blessed."  Is  not 
the  whole  of  this  psalm,  especially  the  parts  quoted,  a 
prophecy  concerning  Christ?  Do  we  not  look  for  its 
accomplishment  in  the  millennium? 

4.  Isaiah  xi :  1-9,  inclusive.  Here  Isaiah  introduces 
to  our  attention  our  Divine  Savior  under  the  figure  of  the 
Branch  that  shall  grow  up  out  of  the  roots  of  the  stem  of 
Jesse.  He  tells  us  what  he  shall  be,  and  what  he  shall 
do,  and  what  shall  be  accomplished  by  his  agency,  and 
winds  up  by  saying :  "  For  the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea."  Does 
not  this  look  forward  to  the  millennial  reign  of  Christ? 

5.  Isaiah  xlis  :  8-21,  inclusive.  This  is  another  sub- 
lime prophecy  of  what  shall  take  place  under  the  reign 
of  the  Messiah.  It  can  be  fully  accomplished  only  in 
the  millennium.  Then,  indeed,  the  heavens  shall  sing, 
and  the  earth  be  joyful;  and  Zion,  who  had  languished 
at  times,  and  at  other  times  obtained  but  partial  successes, 
shall  joyfully  see  her  sons  coming  from  far,  and  her 
daughters  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  exclaim  : 
"  Who  hath  brought  up  these  ?  Behold,  I  was  left  alone  ; 
these,  where  had  they  been  ?"'  The  answer  of  God  is  : 
"  Behold,  I  will  lift  up  mine  hands  to  the  Gentiles,  and 
set  up  my  standard  to  the  people  :  and  they  shall  bring 
thy  sons  in  their  arms,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be  carried 
upon  their  shoulders.  And  kings  shall  be  thy  nursing 
fathers,  and  their  queens  thy  nursing  mothers  :  they  shall 
bow  down  to  thee  with  their  face  toward  the  earth,  and 
lick  up  the  dust  of  thy  feet;  and  thou  shalt  know  that 
I  am  the  Lord :  for  they  shall  not  be  ashamed  that  wait 
for  me." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  209 

6.  Isaiah,  chapter  Ix,  contains  another  glowing  de- 
scription of  what  shall  be  accomplished  under,  and  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  the  Messiah.  The  enraptured  prophet 
begins  by  saying :  "  Arise,  shine  ;  for  thy  light  is  come, 
and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  risen  upon  thee.  For  be- 
hold, the  darkness  shall  cover  the  earth,  and  gross  dark- 
ness the  people  :  but  the  Lord  shall  rise  upon  thee,  and 
his  glory  shall  be  seen  upon  thee.  And  the  Gentiles 
shall  come  to  thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of 
thy  rising.  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about,  and  see  : 
all  they  gather  themselves  together,  they  come  to  thee: 
thy  sons  shall  come  from  far,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be 
nursed  at  thy  side.  Then  tliou  shalt  see,  and  flow  to- 
gether, and  thine  heart  shall  fear,  and  be  enlarged ; 
because  the  abundance  of  the  sea  shall  be  converted 
unto  thee,  the  forces  of  the  Gentiles  shall  come  unto 
thee." 

Thus  continues  this  glowing  prophecy,  but  I  need 
not  transcribe  more.  Remark  is  needless;  explanation 
unnecessary.  I  must,  however,  record  the  last  two  verses : 
"  Thy  people  also  shall  be  all  righteous  :  they  shall  in- 
herit the  land  forever,  the  branch  of  my  planting,  the 
work  of  my  hands,  that  I  may  be  glorified.  A  little  one 
shall  become  a  thousand,  and  a  small  one  a  strong  nation  : 
I  the  Lord  will  hasten  it  in  his  time." 

7.  Daniel  vii :  13,  14-18,  27.  Read  all  these  verses 
together.  You  see  the  Messiah  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven  to  the  Ancient  of  days — the  Father — and  receiv- 
ing "  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people, 
nations,  and  languages,  should  serve  him."  You  see  also, 
that  the  "saints  of  the  Most  High  shall  take  the  king- 
dom, and  possess  the  kingdom  forever  and  ever."  That 
"  the  kingdom  and  dominion,  and  the  greatness  of  the 
kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the 


210  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's   REVIEW    OF 

people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  whose  kingdom  is 
an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  dominions  shall  serve 
and  obey  him."  And  you  finally  see  this  is  the  consum- 
mation :  "Hitherto  is  the  end  of  the  matter."  We  look 
for  the  perfect  and  full  completion  of  this,  only  in  the 
millennium. 

8.  Zech.  viii:  20,  21,  22:  "Thus  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  It  shall  yet  come  to  pass,  that  there  yet  shall 
come  people,  and  the  inhabitants  of  many  cities.  And 
the  inhabitants  of  one  city  shall  go  to  another,  saying. 
Let  us  go  speedily  to  pray  before  the  Lord,  and  seek 
the  Lord  of  hosts  ;  I  will  go  also.  Yea,  n)any  people 
and  strong  nations  shall  come  to  seek  the  Lord  of  hosts 
in  Jerusalem,  and  to  pray  before  the  Lord."  Reader, 
does  not  this  prophecy  look  for  its  full  completion  also 
to  the  millennium  ? 

And  now,  do  not  all  these  prophecies  fully  sustain  Mr. 
Jeter's  (rather  Mr.  Campbell's)  definition  of  the  millen- 
nium ?  And  do  they  not  render  supremely  ridiculous 
Mr.  Lard's  assertion,  that  the  millenniutn  is  something 
about  which  little  or  nothing  is  known? 

IIL  Mr.  Lard  says  :  "  But  it  is  proper  to  hear  Mr. 
Jeter's  account  of  the  manner  in  which  tlie  millennium 
is  to  be  introduced.  '  It  is,'  he  observes,  '  most  mani- 
fest that  the  millennium  can  not  shed  its  blessings  on 
the  world  without  some  new  agency  or  influence,  or  some 
great  increase  of  existing  influences.  We  need  expect 
no  new  revelations  for  our  instruction,  no  new  powers  to 
be  imparted  to  the  human  mind,  and  no  new  means  of 
spreading  the  Gospel  and  enlisting  attention  to  it.  How, 
then,  is  the  millennium  to  be  introduced?  By  an  in- 
creased efiiciency  of  the  Divine  Word.'  "  3Ir.  Lard  adds: 
"The  millennium,  then,  is  to  shed  its  blessings  on  the 
world  by  an   increased  efficiency  of  the  Divine  Word. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  211 

Now,  a  more  perfect  conceit  never  haunted  the  brain  of 
a  Chaldean  astrologer." 

Now,  reader,  let  us  see  what  saith  the  Scriptures  ? 
Consult  again  the  passages  I  have  above  cited.  In  the 
psalm  quoted  it  is  plainly  stated  that  these  wondrous 
thijigs  shall  be  done  by  the  "Lord  God  of  Israel^''  (v.  18.) 
In  the  second  chapter  of  Isaiah,  they  are  ascribed  to  the 
fact  that  "out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word 
of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem,"  and  that  God  '■'■  lolU  teach 
us  of  his  icays." 

In  Isaiah  xi,  they  are  attributed  to  the  fact  that  the 
"  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,"  and 
that  the  Messiah  "  shall  smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of 
his  moiith,"  and  that  the  Lord  shall  set  his  hand  to  do  it. 

In  Isaiah  xlix,  they  are  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  God 
will  make  his  mountains  a  way  and  his  highways  shall 
be  exalted;  that  he  would  comfort  his  people  and  have 
mercy  upon  his  afflicted  ;  that  he  would  exercise  toward 
them  that  tenderness  of  affection  which  a  woman  exer- 
cises toward  her  sucking  child,  and  the  son  of  her 
womb.  And,  finally,  to  the  fact  that  God  would  "  lift 
up  his  hands  to  the  Gentiles,  and  set  up  a  standard  to 
his  people." 

In  Isaiah  Ix,  they  are  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  the  light 
of  Zion  had  come,  that  the  glory  of  the  Lord  had  risen 
upon  her,  that  the  Lord  had  risen  upon  her,  and  the  glory 
of  the  Lord  should  be  seen  upon  her,  etc.,  etc. 

I  need  not  requote  Daniel  and  Zachariah.  Their  tes- 
timony accords  with  these.  They  all  show  that  Mr.  Jeter 
is  right,  and  that  when  Lard  calls  his  view  a  "perfect 
conceit,"  such  as  haunted  the  brain  of  a  "  Chaldean 
astrologer,"  he  stops  but  little  this  side  of  blasphemy. 

I  think  every  reader  outside  of  the  Campbellite  ranks, 
and  I  hope  many  inside  too,  will  have  no  difficulty  in 


212  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW    OP 

seeing  that  in  all  these  prophecies  the  ordiiiar^  means  of 
conversion  are  mentioned.  But  they  are  mentioned  in 
connection  with  prophetic  promises  o^  increased  efficiency. 
God  will  say  of  every  impediment  now  in  the  way  of  the 
complete  triumphs  of  the  Redeemer,  as  he  said  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  completion  of  the  second 
temple,  '•  Who  art  thou,  0  great  mountain  ?  before  Ze- 
rubbabel  thou  shalt  become  a  plain."  Our  blessed  Lord 
is  our  spiritual  Zerubbabel.  He  is  the  man  whose  name 
is  the  Branch,  and  who  is  to  build  the  temple  of  the 
Lord.  And  he  will  do  it  neither  by  might,  nor  by 
power,  but  by  Jehovah's  Spirit;  and  when  the  last  stone 
is  carried  up,  it  will  be  with  shoutings  of  Grace,  grace 
unto  it. 

IV.  Mr.  Lard  says,  finally,  "  The  objection  obviously 
assumes  that  the  millennium  is  to  be  introduced  hy  con- 
version.    But  this  we  deny." 

1.  How  can  Mr.  Lard  deny  this  when  he  confesses 
that  he  Jcnoics  hut  little,  if  anything,  about  the  inillenniumf 

2.  How  can  he  deny  this  in  view  of  all  the  passages 
above  quoted  ?  Let  the  reader  refer  to  them  again.  Read 
especially  Isaiah  ii  and  Zachariah  viii.  If  we  should 
consult  only  Revelation  xx,  we  should  see  that  Satan  is 
to  be  bound  and  prevented  from  deceiving  the  nations 
any  more,  (v.  3,)  and  that  the  saints  are  to  sit  on  thrones, 
and  judgment  is  to  be  given  unto  them.  Now  all  this 
must  signify  a  spiritual  exemption  from  Satanic  molesta- 
tions, and  an  exalted  position  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
And  surely,  all  this  implies  conversion. 

I  presume  not  to  know  the  heart,  but  I  can  not  divest 
myself  of  the  impression  that  Mr.  Lard  felt  the  force  of 
this  objection.  He  saw  that  he  could  not  admit  Mr. 
Campbell  s  definition  of  the  millennium,  and  then  recon- 
cile his  theory  of  conversion  with  it.     Hence  he  chose  to 


Jeter's  campbellisji  exposed.  213 

differ  from  Mr.  Campbell.  But  in  differing  from  him  he 
differs  from  a  greater.  He  differs  from  the  Spirit  of  In- 
spiration himself!  Nor  could  he  admit  that  the  millen- 
nium will  be  introduced  by  conversion  without  placing 
himself  in  an  equally  embarrassing  dilemma.  Hence  he 
ventures  to  deny  this  also.  But  he  does  not  condescend 
to  tell  us  what  the  millennium,  in  his  judgment,  is,  nor 
how  it  will  be  introduced,  nor  the  means  tbat  will 'be 
employed  to  bring  it  about.  He  calls  the  idea  that  it 
will  be  brought  about  by  "  an  increased  efficiency  of  the 
Divine  Word,"  a  conceit  as  perfect  as  any  that  ever  haunt- 
ed a  Chaldean  astrologer's  brain,  intimates  that  magnetism 
or  a  submarine  telegraph  may  introduce  it,  and  then  closes 
by  saying,  "we  feel  compelled  to  pronounce  his  [Jeter's] 
present  objection  sheer  nonsense!!" 

Nothing  is  plainer  to  my  mind  than  that  Mr.  Jeter's 
objection  is  well-founded,  has  been  by  him  fully  sustained, 
and  is  only  made  the  stronger  by  this  impotent  effort  of 
Mr.  Lard's  to  meet  it. 


Mr.  Lard  states  Mr.  Jeter's  seventh  objection  thus  : 
'■'■The  assumption  tender  consideration  [that  the  Spirit 
operates  in  conversion  through  the  truth  only]  is  incom- 
patible with  the  salvation  of  infants.  They  enter  into  the 
world,  as  Mr.  Campbell  admits,  with  depraved  hearts. 
Dying  before  they  attain  to  years  of  intelligence,  they 
must  enter  heaven  with  their  moral  natures  unchanged, 
which  is  impossible  ;  they  must  be  renovated  by  death, 
which  is  a  mere  figment ;  they  must  be  renewed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  without  the  word,  the  possibility  of  which 
Mr.  Campbell  can  not  conceive,  or  they  must  be  lost.  I 
do  not  charge  him  with  admitting  this  consequence ;  but 
it  appears  to  be  logically  deduced  from  the  position  which 


214         AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

he  assumes,  and  all  liis  ingenuity  has  not  enabled  him  ta 
escape  from  it." 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  Mr.  Lard  says  some  things 
which  he,  I  have  no  doubt,  thinks  are  shrewd  and  witty, 
but  I  esteem  them  weak  and  useless.  I  will,  therefore, 
pass  them  by  in  silence,  and  quote  the  only  sentence  of 
importance  to  us : 

"J/r.  Campbell  does  not  admit  that  infants  are  depraved 
in  any  sense  which  makes  it  necessary  to  regenerate  them, 
either  ivith  or  without  the  Word,  in  order  to  their  salva- 
tion.^^ 

The  emphasis  is  Mr.  Lard's. 

1.  I  would  remark,  Then  Mr.  Campbell,  Mr.  Lard, 
etc.,  can  not  believe  that  infants  are  depraved  at  all,  or 
they  must  believe  that  they  take  their  depravity  with 
them  to  heaven  !  If  they  are  depraved  at  all,  what  be- 
comes of  their  depravity  when  they  die  ?  Does  it  go  to 
heaven  with  them  ?  This  is  impossible  :  for  nothing 
depraved  or  impure  can  go  there.  The  "pure  in  heart" 
only  shall  "see  God."  Does  it  go  into  the  grave  with 
the  body?  This  it  can  not  do  unless,  either,  1st,  it  be- 
longs exclusively  to  the  body  ;  or,  2d,  some  power  sepa- 
rates it  from  the  soul  at  death,  that  it  may  go  with  the 
body.  But  what  could  we  call  this  separation  but  regen- 
eration ? 

2.  If  the  soul  of  the  infant  is  so  pure  as  to  need  no 
change  to  fit  it  for  heaven,  at  what  period,  and  by  what 
means,  after  infancy,  does  it  become  so  impure  as  to  need 
regeneration?  How  is  it,  that  the  soul  of  the  adult,  any 
more  than  the  soul  of  the  infant,  needs  to  be  changed 
to  be  fitted  for  heaven  ?  We  need  light  here.  If  the 
soul  of  the  infant  is  pure,  (and  this  it  must  be  to  be  tit 
for  regeneration,)  we  want  to  know  at  what  period,  and 
by  what  process,  it  became  impure.     The  Pharisees  sup- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  215 

posed  that  moral  defilement  came  from  without;  but  our 
Savior  let  them  know  it  came  from  within. — Matt,  xv : 
17,  18.  The  heart,  as  a  well-spring,  sends  up  its  waters, 
and  they  are  like  itself.  Now,  if  the  heart  of  the  infant 
is  at  first  pure,  how  comes  it  to  be  afterward  defiled  ? 

3.  It  matters  not,  so  far  as  Mr.  Jeter's  present  objec- 
tion is  concerned,  whether  the  infant  has  to  be  regener- 
ated to  fit  it  for  heaven,  or  not;  we  know  that  infants 
have  been  the  subjects  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  and  this 
proves  that  he  can  and  does  operate  (or,  at  least,  has 
operated)  without  the  Word.  Proof:  Jeremiah  i :  5  : 
"Before  I  formed  thee  in  the  belly,  I  knew  thee;  and 
before  thou  camest  forth  out  of  the  womb,  I  sanctified 
thee,  and  I  ordained  thee  a  prophet  unto  the  nations." 
Mr.  Lard  may  object  to  this  text  that  it  simply  says,  Jer- 
emiah was  sanctified  before  he  came  from  the  mother's 
womb,  but  this  sanctification  does  not  necessarily  imply 
an  influence  of  the  Spirit.  I  think  it  does.  I  can  not 
see  how  God  can  sanctify  any  one  and  yet  put  forth  no 
influence.  But  I  will  back  this  text  with  another  that 
leaves  no  room  for  dodging.  "  But  the  angel  said  unto 
him,  Fear  not,  Zacharias,  for  thy  prayer  is  heard,  and 
thy  wife  Elizabeth  shall  bear  thee  a  son,  and  thou  shalt 
call  his  name  John.  And  thou  shalt  have  joy  and  glad- 
ness, and  many  shall  rejoice  at  his  birth  :  For  he  shall 
be  great  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  shall  drink  neither 
wine,  nor  strong  drink,  and  he  shall  be  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  even  from  his  mother's  womb."  There  it 
is.  Did  not  the  Holy  Spirit  take  possession  of  John's 
heart,  and  dwell  there,  without  the  means  of  the  truth  ? 
This  text,  then,  forever  explodes  and  scatters  to  the  wind, 
the  word  "only"  at  the  end  of  Mr.  Lard's  proposition. 
And  with  this  we  are  content.  As  to  how  infants  are 
fitted  for  heaven,  I  deem  it  unnecessary,  here,  to  say 


216  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARd's   REVIEW   OF 

anything  further  than  this  :  It  will  be  done  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  fit  them  to  join  all  the  redeemed  in  cease- 
less adorations  to  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  for  their  salvation.  They  ■will  be  the  subjects  of 
the  same  spiritual  and  physical  resurrection.  When  the 
redeemed  from  earth  shall  exclaim,  '-Unto  him  that  loved 
us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,"  etc., 
I  do  not  suppose  that  those  saved  in  infancy  will  be 
silent.  And  when  the  Lamb  in  the  midst  of  the  throne 
received  the  book  from  the  hand  of  him  that  sat  on  the 
throne,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  were  moved 
with  adoring  rapture,  "  and  they  sang  a  new  song,  saying, 
'  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and  to  open  the  seals 
thereof:  for  thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to 
God  by  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and 
people,  and  nation,"  —  I  do  not  suppose  that  infants' 
spirits,  who  had  already  gone  to  heaven,  saw  any  incon- 
gruity in  their  joining  in  the  antheiii.  But  if  Christ 
redeemed  them  by  his  blood,  they  were  under  the  curse 
as  well  as  others.  If  he  washed  them  from  their  sins,  as 
well  as  others,  they  were  also  defiled  ;  and  this  he  did, 
if  these  heavenly  songs  are  compatible  to  them. 

4.  It  is  a  circumstance,  in  my  estimation,  more  than 
suspicious,  that  Mr.  Lard's,  alias  Mr.  Campbell's,  theory, 
requires  so  many  denials  of  truths  long  and  generally 
received.  They  themselves  should  suspect  their  own  the- 
ory. I  hope  they  will,  and  give  it  a  serious  and  candid 
re-examination.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  invent  and  advo- 
cate a  theory  that  makes  man  so  pure  and  innocent  as  to 
render  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  unnecessary,  and 
takes  a  large  portion  of  an  apostate  race  to  heaven  with- 
out any  moral  renovation  ! 

I  pass  to  Mr,  Jeter's  eighth  objection,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Lard  : 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  217 

"  Mr.  Campbell's  assumption  [;Ae  Spirit's  operating 
through  the  truth  only^  is  wholly  at  tear  loith  the  Scripture 
doctrine  of  Satanic  influence. 

"Satan  and  other  evil  spirits  are  represented  in  the 
Bible  as  exerting  a  mighty  moral  influence  for  the 
destruction  of  men.  They  tempt,  deceive,  enslave,  and 
degrade  mankind.  Satan  is  a  mighty  prince,  and  at  the 
head  of  a  great  and  spreading  empire.  But  how  do  the 
evil  spirits  exert  an  influence  over  the  minds  of  men  ? 
By  arguments  or  motives  addressed  to  them,  by  words, 
oral  or  written  ?  Certainly  not ;  but  by  a  direct,  inter- 
nal, and  eflBcient  influence." 

Mr.  Lard  replies  to  this  objection,  as  usual,  by  denying. 
He  says  :  » 

1.  "  We  deny  utterly  that  Satan  exerts  any  direct  in- 
fluence on  the  human  mind." 

As  to  whether  Satan  does,  or  does  not,  exert  any  direct 
influence  on  the  human  mind,  we  can  know  nothing  only 
as  Divine  revelation  may  enlighten  us.  Reader,  let  me 
lay  before  you  what  God  has  said  on  this  subject.  John 
xiii :  27:  "And  after  the  sop,  Satan  entered  into  him, 
[Judas.]  Then  said  Jesus  unto  him.  That  thou  doest, 
do  quickly."  Here,  it  is  obvious  that  our  blessed  Lord 
alluded  to  his  betrayal  by  Judas ;  and  that  Judas  was 
instigated  by  the  devil  to  betray  him.  Now,  was  not  this 
instigation  direct?  I  think  any  one  but  a  Campbellite 
will  answer  afiirmatively.  Take  another  example.  Acts 
v:  3:  "But  Peter  said  to  Ananias,  Why  hath  Satan 
filled  thy  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  keep 
back  part  of  the  price  of  the  land?"  Now,  how  did 
Satan  fill  Ananias's  heart?  Was  it  not  by  a  direct  influ- 
ence ?  I  will  cite  but  one  more  example.  1  Chronicles 
xxi :  1 :  "And  Satan  stood  up  against  Israel,  and  provoked 
David  to  number  Israel."  The  law  of  God  says,  "  Out 
10 


218  AN    EXAMINATION   OF   LARD'S   REVIEW    OF 

of  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  shall 
be  established."     These  examples  shall  therefore  suffice. 

Reader,  examine  these  examples,  and  then  consider  the 
following  from  Mr.  Lard  : 

"  We  deny  that  he  does  it,  [i.  e.,  exert  a  direct  influ- 
ence upon  the  human  mind.]  The  question  is  a  question 
of  fact,  which  should  not  have  been  assumed,  as  it  has 
been,  but  proved,  or  not  made  the- basis  of  an  objection. 
It  is  a  sheer  fiction  invented  for  a  special  purpose." 

When  men  talk  in  this  way  they  ought  to  be  very  sure 
that  they  are  right.  It  is  an  easy  thing  to  call  a  doctrine, 
or  a  fact,  a  "sheer  fiction."  It  is  easy  to  say  "we  deny" 
so  and  so,  but  it  is  a  hard  thing  to  "  kick  against  the 
goads." 

Mr.  Lard  finally  remarks :  "  But  even  granting,  as 
already  stated,  that  Satan  does  exert  a  direct  influence  on 
the  mind,  is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Jeter  can  make  this  the 
ground  of  an  argument  as  to  what  the  Spirit  does  ?  Does 
he  mean  to  teach,  because  Satan  can  do  a  thing,  and 
does  it  for  wicked  ends  because  he  can,  that  we  are 
therefore  to  conclude  that  the  Holy  Spirit  docs  the  same 
thing." 

No,  Mr.  Lard.  We  do  not  conclude  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  does  the  "same  thing,"  i.  e.,  exert  a  direct  influ- 
ence on  the  mind  for  wicked  ends.     But  go  on. 

"  This  is  the  pith  of  his  argument ;  and  yet  he  affects 
to  be  jealous  of  the  honor  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  How  dare 
he  assert,  conceding  his  position  to  be  correct,  that  the 
enormity  of  Satan's  sin  consists  not  in  this  very  thing — 
that  he  does,  because  he  can — exert  a  direct  influence  on 
the  mind?  For  aught  he  knows,  this  may  make  the 
great  trenching  difference  between  the  Spirit's  inter- 
course with  man  and  Satan's — a  difference  which  makes 
the  intercourse  of  the  latter  intensely  wicked." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  219 

Now,  reader,  does  not  that  sound  exceedingly  strange  ? 
coming,  as  it  evidently  does,  from  a  man  of  some  ability. 
If  I  were  not  fearful  that  some  one  might  think  it  an 
exemplification  of  the  apostolic  adage,  "  Evil  communi- 
cations corrupt  good  manners,"  I  would  adopt  Mr.  Lard's 
language  here,  and  say:  "A  more  perfect  conceit  never 
haunted  the  brain  of  a  Chaldean  astrologer"  than  this — 
that  the  intense  wickedness  of  Satan  consists  in  his  ex- 
erting direct  influence  on  the  human  mind.  His  wicked- 
ness consists,  not  in  how  he  influences  the  human  mind, 
but,  in  the  tendency  and  ohject  of  the  influence.  As  Satan 
always  influences  to  a  had  end,  he  is  wicked,  "  intensely 
wicked,"  whether  the  manner  of  his  influence  be  ''  direct" 
or  indirect.  Surely  a  child  can  understand  this.  And 
for  Mr.  Lard  to  say,  that  "for  aught"  Mr.  Jeter  "knows" 
this  fact,  that  Satan's  influence  is  direct  and  the  Spirit's 
not,  "may  make  the  great  trenching  diff'erence  between" 
them,  is  to  make  his  own  ignorance  the  standard  by 
which  he  judges  Mr.  Jeter.  Who  is  it  that  does  not 
know  that  the  "great  trenching  difference  between" 
Satan  and  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  the  former  always  influ- 
ences to  evil  and  the  latter  to  good?  I  can  think  of  no 
one,  possessed  of  a  sane  mind,  who  does  not  know  this, 
unless  it  is  Mr.  Lard. 

leader,  let  me  ask  you  if  Mr.  Campbell's  aad  Mr. 
Lard's  theory,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  conver- 
sion through  the  word  only^  that  he  has  no  direct  influence 
upon  the  sinner,  does  not  give  the  Devil  the  advantage? 
He  has  all  the  instrumentality  which  the  sophistry  of 
infidels  and  errorists  can  supply,  and  a  direct  agency  or 
influence  on  the  human  heart,  besides.  But  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  no  access  excepting  through  his  Word,  written 
or  spoken  !  We  can  admit  no  such  advantage  to  Satan, 
hence  we  discard  the  theory  that  gives  it  to  him  ! 


220  AN  EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

I  will  pass  to  notice  Mr.  Jeter's  ninth  objection  as 
stated  by  Mr.  Lard  : 

"  Objection  9.  '  The  assumption  that  the  Spirit  can 
(does)  operate  on  the  soul  of  man,  in  conversion  only, 
by  arguments  or  words,  is  not  only  unphilosophical,  but 
contrary  to  divinely  recorded  facts.  It  is  not  true  that 
physical  power  can  not  produce  a  moral  effect.  *  *  * 
Christ  was  created  holy.  "The  Holy  Grhost  shall  come 
upon  thee,"  said  the  angel  to  Mary,  "  and  the  power  of 
the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee ;  therefore  that  holy 
thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the 
Son  of  God." — Luke  iv:  35.  Was  not  the  holiness  of 
the  infant  Redeemer  a  moral  quality?  and  was  not  this 
eiFect  produced,  not  by  arguments,  persuasions,  or  words, 
but  by  the  power — the  physical  power  of  the  Highest.'  " 

Upon  this,  Mr.  Lard  rings  the  following  changes  : 

"  The  holiness  of  the  infant  Redeemer  loas  created^ 
was  it  f  Created  exactly  as  a  brad  or  an  oyster  is  crea- 
ted; created,  too,  by  the  p)hysical  power  of  the  Almighty! 
It  was  then  a  mere  created  thing,  and  hence,  per  se,  of 
no  more  value  than  the  color  of  a  goose." 

I  do  not  know  how  to  name  what  Mr.  Lard  has  here 
said.  Is  it  weakness?  or  is  it  madness  ?  Is  it  the  scoff 
of  a  skeptic  ?  or  is  it  the  utterances  of  an  imbecile  ?  I 
will  let  the  reader  say. 

1.  I  never  supposed  that  any  one  doubted  that  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  was  "  holy,  and  harmless,  and  unde- 
filed,  and  separate  from  sinners  "  by  virtue  of  his  mirac- 
%dous  conception — that  his  holiness  was  a  part  of  his 
nature,  produced,  as  other  parts,  hy  the  Holy  Ghost. 
That  it  was  "  created."  Had  the  holiness  of  the  infant 
Jesus  any  existence  before  he  existed  ?  I  presume  not. 
Then  was  it  not  created  with  him  ?  Remember,  Mr.  Jeter 
speaks  of  the  holiness  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ, 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  221 

not  of  the  Divine  that  dwelt  in  him.  Now,  God  the 
Father,  by  his  Spirit,  created  the  body  in  which  God  the 
Son  was  manifested.  And  he  either  created  it  hol^,  or  he 
did  not.  And,  before  Mr.  Lard  affects  such  astonish- 
ment at  the  view  Mr.  Jeter  has  given,  it  becomes  him  to 
tell  hoio  the  Divine  Word  took  upon  him  our  nature  ivith- 
out  sin. 

2.  Strange  that  Mr.  Lard  should  regard  created  holi- 
ness as  valueless  as  the  "  color  of  a  goose  !"  God  made 
man  vpright,  he  made  a  goose  grnT/.  Is  uprlylit  and  gray 
of  equal  value  ?  Shame,  shame  !  that  a  man  of  Mr. 
Lard's  pretensions  should  make  an  assertion  like  this. 
Did  not  the  same  God  that  gave  an  angel  his  being  give 
him  his  holiness  ?  Is  it  not  a  part  of  his  being?  And 
yet  is  it  as  valueless  as  the  color  of  a  goose  ? 

There  can  be  no  better  proof  of  the  erroneousness  of 
Mr.  Lard's  theory,  than  it  gives,  in  its  impelling  him  to 
such  strange,  and  weak,  and  silly  assertions  in  its  defense. 
And  there  can  be  no  better  proof  of  the  force  and  validity 
of  this  "  objection  "  to  his  theory,  than  this  weak  attempt 
to  meet  it. 

Mr.  Lard  mentions  but  one  more  objection  as  urged  by 
Mr.  Jeter,  to  his  theory  of  the  Spirit's  influence  in  con- 
version. I  need  not  notice  it  here,  as  what  he  says  by 
way  of  reply  is  valueless,  and  would  add  nothing  to  what 
we  have  already  considered. 

Now,  reader,  you  have  before  you  an  examination  of 
all  that  Mr.  Lard  has  said,  both  by  way  of  arguing  his 
own  side  of  this  question,  and  by  way  of  meeting  Mr. 
Jeter's  objections.  Can  you  say  of  his  theory  as  he  has 
done  :  "  We  never  felt  more  profoundly  penetrated  with 
the  conviction  of  its  truth  than  now !"  I  must  say,  that 
I  never  felt  more  profoundly  penetrated  with  the  convic- 
tion   of  its  j'alschooil   than    now.     I   have  weighed  Mr. 


222  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

Lard's  arguments  and  his  replies  to  Mr.  Jeter's  objec- 
tions, I  have  brought  them  to  the  test  of  Scripture  and 
reason,  and  I  must  say  they  are  found  wanting. 

Let  me  appropriate  the  finest  passage  in  Mr.  Lard's 
book  to  my  side  of  the  question,  and  then  the  logic  will 
be  worthy  of  the  rhetoric. 

"These  feeble"  arguments  and  "objections,"  to  our 
view  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion, 
"  have  melted  at  its  base,  like  snow  at  the  foot  of  the 
Andes,  and  still  it  stands.  Mists  may  gather  around  it, 
and  objections  lie  on  its  outskirts  ;  but  still  it  towers  far 
up  into  a  region  where  mists  never  gather,  and  objections 
never  collect.  Its  luster  may  be  obscured  for  a  day  ;  but, 
like  the  sun  marching  behind  a  pavilion  of  cloud,  it  will 
gleam  forth  at  last  all  the  brighter  for  the  transient  ob- 
scurity. We  commend  it,  therefore,  to  the  confidence 
of  all  good  men,  and  commit  it  to  the  safe-keeping  of 
God." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  223 


CHAPTEE  V. 

THE    INFLUENCE    OP   THE    HOLT   SPIRIT   IN   CONVERSION. 

(Continued.) 

§  1- 

IN  this  chapter  I  enter  upon  the  presentation  of  a  few 
arguments  in  favor  of  our  side  of  this  question.  After 
what  has  already  been  done,  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  say 
much.  I  shall  only  offer  some  arguments  additional  to 
those  oifered  by  Mr.  Jeter.  I  hope  his  book  and  mine 
will  be  helps  to  each  other  in  presenting  and  sustaining 
the  truth.     Let  the  reader  consult  both. 

The  reader  will,  no  doubt,  remember  that  Mr.  Lard 
has  again  and  again  alluded  to  the  argument  from  human 
depravity.  He  virtually  admits  that  if  man  is  depraved 
to  the  extent  that  Mr.  Jeter  says  he  is,  it  follows  that  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary  in  conversion. 
But  he  denies  that  man  is  thus  depraved,  and,  therefore, 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion. 

In  this  section,  then,  I  will  discuss  the  question  of 
depravity.  In  doing  this,  I  deem  it  necessary  to  requote 
some  things  that  have  already  passed  under  review.  I 
hope,  however,  that  the  patience  of  the  reader  will  not 
be  too  severely  taxed.  Much  patience  should  be  exer- 
cised in  this  investigation.  The  points  at  issue  are  mat- 
ters of  first  importance,  and  will,  therefore,  richly  repay 
all  our  labor. 

On  page  84,  at  the  close  of  his  first  argument,  Mr.  Lard 
says  : 

"And  what  is  here  said  suggests  the  true  theory  of  the 


224  AN    EXAMINATION  OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OP 

argument  usual!}'  urf!;ed  from  depravity  in  defense  of  an 
influence  above,  or  nut  in  the  truth.  It  is  first  assumed 
that  man  is  totally,  or  as  Mr.  Jeter  has  it,  '■utterly  depraved. 
It  is  then  urged  that  this  utter  depravity,  or  rather  the 
resistance  which  is  met  with  from  it  in  conversion,  can 
not  be  overcome  by  any  force  of  Divine  truth,  however 
great,  and  that  there  is  hence  a  necessity  for  another  and 
greater  influence.  But,  instead  of  assuming  this,  which 
is  the  main  point  in  the  argument,  let  the  advocates  of 
this  peculiar  influence  come  forward  and  show  us,  either 
by  indisputable  and  pertinent  facts,  or  passages  of  Holy 
Writ  clear  and  relevant,  that  man  is  thus  depraved;  then, 
and  not  till  then,  will  their  argument  be  of  any  force  or 
entitled  to  any  respect." 

Well,  I  accept  the  issue  here  made  by  Mr.  Lard.  It  is 
then  understood,  that  if  human  depravity  as  taught  by 
Mr.  Jeter  is  Scriptural,  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
conversion  is  proved.  That  I  may  not  unnecessarily 
pass  over  the  same  ground,  I  refer  the  reader  to  what  has 
already  been  said  in  chapter  iv,  §§  1  and  2.  I  would 
especially  remind  him  that  Mr.  Lard  holds  that  mans 
present  condition  is  but  little,  if  any,  worse  than  was 
Adam's  before  he  sinned.  And  now,  reader,  having  all 
these  matters  before  you,  proceed  with  me  to  the  follow- 
ing additional  proofs  : 

1.  Gen.  vi  :  5  :  "And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness 
of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagina- 
tion of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continu- 
ally." Can  language  be  stronger  or  more  in  point  than 
this  ?  Learned  men  tell  us  that  the  Hebrew  word  ren- 
dered "imagination,"  signifies  also,  the  "  purposes  and 
de.sires."  If  it  is  true  (and  true  it  is,  if  the  word  of 
God  is  true)  that  every  imagination,  purpose,  and  desire 
of  the  thoughts  of  man's  heart  is  only  evil,  and  that  con- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  225 

tinually,  Mr.  Jeter's  is  the  true  position,  and  Mr.  Lard's 
the  false. 

2.  Gen.  viii  :  21  :  "  The  Lord  said  in  his  heart,  I  will 
not  again  curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man's  sake;  for 
the  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth  : 
neither  will  I  again  smite  any  more  everything  living  as  I 
have  done."  This  passage  shows  that  though  God  had 
brought  a  flood  upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly,  it  had 
wrought  no  change  in  man's  nature.  What  he  was  be- 
fore the  flood,  he  was  after  it:  still,  therefore,  "utterly 
depraved." 

3.  Psalm  xiv  :  2,  3  :  "  The  Lord  looked  down  from 
heaven  upon  the  children  of  men  ;  to  see  if  there  were 
any  that  did  understand  and  seek  God.  They  are  all 
gone  aside,  they  are  altogether  become  filthy  :  there  is 
none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one."  This  passage  needs 
no  comment.  It  speaks  for  itself.  None  can  innocently 
mistake  its  meaning,  especially  when  it  is  remembered 
what  the  apostle  says  about  it — see  Romans  iii :  9-12  : 
"What  then?  are  we  better  than  they?  No,  in  no  wise: 
for  we  have  before  proved  [see  chapter  i]  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  that  they  are  all  under  sin  ;  as  it  is  written, 
There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one  :  there  is  none  that 
understandeth,  there  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God. 
They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way,  they  are  together  be- 
come unprofitable  :  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no, 
not  one." 

The  apostle  continues:  "  Their  throat  is  an  open  sep- 
ulcher  ;  with  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit :  the 
poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips;  whose  mouth  is  full  of 
cursing  and  bitterness.  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood. 
Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways;  and  the  way 
of  peace  have  they  not  known.  There  is  no  fear  of  God 
before  their  eyes."  (Compare  Psalm  v:  9;  Psalm  cxl :  3; 
10* 


226  AN   EXAMINATION   OP    LARd's  REVIEW   OP 

Psalm  x:  7;  Isaiah  lix  :  7-8;  and  Psalm  xxxvi :  1.)  xVlI 
these  passages  the  apostle  quotes  to  prove  his  own  affirm- 
ation, that  he  had  "  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, that  they  were  all  under  sin." 

Let  us  now  see  what  the  apostle  had  before  said  :  "For 
the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all 
ungodliness,  and  unrighteousness  of  men,  who  hold  the 
truth  in  unrighteousness.  Because  that  which  may  be 
known  of  God,  is  manifest  in  them  ;  for  God  hath  showed 
it  unto  them.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the 
creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood 
by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and 
godhead  ;  so  that  tliey  are  without  excuse :  becaoise  that 
when  they  knew  God  they  glorified  him  not  as  God, 
neither  were  thankful,  but  became  vain  in  their  imagin- 
ations, and  their  foolish  heart  was  darkened.  Professing 
themselves  to  be  wise,  they  became  fools  ;  and  changed 
the  glory  of  the  uncorruptible  God  into  an  image  made 
like  to  corruptible  man,  and  to  birds,  and  four-footed 
beasts,  and  creeping  things.  Wherefore  God  also  gave 
them  up  to  uncleanness,  through  the  lusts  of  their  own 
hearts,  to  dishonor  their  own  bodies  between  themselves : 
who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worshiped 
and  served  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator,  who  is 
blessed  forever.     Amen. 

"  For  this  cause  God  gave  them  up  unto  vile  affections. 
For  even  their  women  did  change  the  natural  use  into 
that  which  is  against  nature:  and  likewise  also  the  men, 
leaving  the  natural  use  of  the  woman,  burned  in  their 
lust  one  toward  another  ;  men  with  men  working  that 
which  is  unseemly,  and  receiving  in  themselves  that 
recompense  of  their  error  which  was  meet.  And  even 
as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge, 
God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,  to  do  those 


JETER  S    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED. 


227 


things  which  are  not  convenient :  being  filled  with  all 
unrighteousness,  fornication,  wickedness,  covetousness, 
maliciousness ;  full  of  envy,  murder,  debate,  deceit,  ma- 
lignity ;  whisperers,  backbiters,  haters  of  God,  despite- 
ful, proud,  boasters,  inventors  of  evil  things,  disobedient 
to  parents,  without  understanding,  covenant-breakers, 
without  natural  affection,  implacable,  unmerciful." 

A  darker  picture  can  not  be  drawn  than  the  one  which 
the  apostle  has  drawn  here.  Every  term,  almost,  furnished 
by  the  English  language  to  express  extreme  depravity, 
wickedness,  and  guilt,  have  been  employed.  How  sig- 
nificant, then,  the  (juestion,  "  What  then?  are  we  better 
than  they  ?"'  And  how  forcible  the  answer,  "  No,  in  no 
wise  :  for  we  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
that  they  are  all  under  sin." 

Reader,  with  whose  position  on  human  depravity  do  all 
these  Scripture  quotations  agree  ?  Mr.  Jeter's  or  Mr. 
Lard's  ?  I  will  place  what  Mr.  Jeter  and  Mr.  Lard  have 
said  side  by  side,  that  you  may  the  better  judge. 


MR.   JETER  S    VIEW. 

"  The  Spirit  of  inspiration  has 
drawn  the  picture  of  man's  moral 
corruption  in  gloomy  colors.  He 
is  utterly  depraved,  fleshly,  sen- 
sual, and  impure.  '  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh.' — 
John  iii :  6.  He  is  without  spir- 
itual life,  without  holiness,  with- 
out moral  worth — '  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins.' — Ef)h.ii:l.  He 
is  alienated  from  God,  and  oppos- 
ed to  his  law,  and,  consequently, 
to  truth  and  righteousness.  *  Be- 
cause the  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God  :  for  it  is  not  subject 
to  the  law  nf  God,  neither  indeed 


MR.    LARD  S    VIEW. 

"But  this  frailty  or  weakness 
is  not  sin ;  it  is  only  a  condition 
without  which  there  had  been  no 
sin.  Nor  is  it  a  consequence  of 
Adam's  sin.  Adam  possessed  it 
before  he  sinned,  else  he  had  not 
sinned  ;  hence,  it  is  not  a  conse- 
quence of  his  sin.  It  is,  however, 
a  condition  of  sin,  since  without 
it  Adam  could  not  have  sinned; 
but  it  is  only  a  condition.  Nor, 
perhaps,  will  facts  warrant  the 
conclusion  that  this  frailty  is, 
even  in  our  case,  greatly  increas- 
ed. For  greater  weakness  in  sin- 
ning was  ncAi-er  displayed  than 


228  AN    EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

MR.    JETKR's    view.  me.    LARD's   VIEW. 

can  be.' — Rom.  viii :  7.    This  de-    by  Adam.    He  yielded  to  the  first 
pravity  pervades  and  controls  the    temptation  ever  presented  to  him, 
whole  man,  blinding  the  mind,    without,  so  far  as  we  know,  ofFer- 
perverting  the  affections,  stupe-     ing  the  slightest  resistance.    No 
tying  the  conscience,  making  re-    one  of  his  descendants  ever  did 
bellious  and  obstinate  the  will,    more." 
and  prostituting  the  members  of 
the  body  as  the  instruments  of 
sin.     And  this  moral  corruption 
of  human   nature   is   universal. 
'For  all  have  sinned  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God.' — Rom. 
iii:  2.3." 

There  is  one  fact  characteristic  of  these  quotations 
from  Mr,  Jeter  and  Mr.  Lard,  to  which  I  must  invite  the 
reader's  attention,  to  wit :  Mr.  Jeter's  abounds  with  Scrip- 
ture quotations,  while  Mr.  Lard's  has  not  a  solitary  one! 
There  is  also  another  fact  worthy  of  being  noted,  namely: 
Mr.  Jeter's  abounds  in  Scripture  phraseology,  while  Mr. 
Lard's  is  wholly  destitute!  Then  it  certainly  follows 
that  Mr.  Jeter's  is  supported  by  the  word  of  God,  while 
Mr.  Lard's  is  antagonistic  to  it. 

There  is  but  one  more  point  to  which  I  deem  it  neces- 
sary to  pay  attention.  Mr.  Lard  says,  our  "frailty,"  or 
"weakness,"  or  "depravity,"  is  not  a  '■'■consequence  of 
Adam's  sin."  Now,  reader,  what  does  Paul  say  ?  Let 
us  go  to  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans. 
Now,  let  us  begin  to  read  at  the  twelfth  verse  :  "  Where- 
fore as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 
have  sinned:  (for  until  the  law,  sin  was  in  the  world: 
but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.  Neverthe- 
less death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them 
that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression, who  is  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come.    But 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  229 

not  as  the  offense,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For  if  through 
the  offense  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace 
of  Grod,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man, 
Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.  And  not  that 
it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the  gift.  For  the  judg- 
ment was  by  one  to  condemnation,  but  the  free  gift  is  of 
many  offenses  unto  justification.  For  if  by  one  man's 
offense  death  reigned  by  one  ;  much  more  they  which 
receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteous- 
ness, shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.)  Therefore, 
as  by  the  offense  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.  For 
as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  right- 
eous." 

I  do  not  know  how  to  add,  either  to  the  force,  perspi- 
cuity, or  point  of  the  above  quotation.  It  evidently 
teaches  the  very  thing  which  Mr.  Lard  denies.  Paul 
plainly  asserts  that  three  things  come  upon  all  men  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  sin  : 

1.  Sin,  and  consequently  death.  "  By  the  disobedi- 
ence of  one  man  [Adam]  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin." 

2.  Judgment  or  condemnation.  "  The  judgment  was 
by  one  [Adam]  to  condemnation." 

3.  Depravity  or  guilt.  "  For  as  by  one  man's  [Adam's] 
disobedience  many  were  made  sinners." 

I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  quote  another  passage  or  add 
another  remark.  Still,  there  are  two  passages  I  will  re- 
quest the  reader  to  compare,  to  wit:  Gren.  v:  3:  "And 
Adam  lived  a  hundred  and  thirty  years  and  begat  a  son 
in  Ms  own  imaged  1  Cor.  xv :  47-49  :  "  The  first  man 
is  of  the  earth,  earthy.       *      *      *      As  is  the  earthy, 


230  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

such  are  they  also  that  are  earthy.  -^  *  -i^  And  as 
we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,"  etc.  The  first 
passage  evidently  means  that  the  son  whom  Adam  begat, 
was  like  himself,  a  depraved  human  being.  And  the  sec- 
ond therefore  means,  that  all  men,  as  descendent  of 
Adam  are  subject  to  sin,  disease^  and  death. 

Here,  then,  I  close  my  first  argument:  Man  is  utterly 
depraved.,  therefore  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  nec- 
essary in  conversion. 

My  second  argument  in  support  of  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  conversion,  is  founded  on  the  promise  of 
the  Savior  in  connection  with  his  final  commission  to  his 
apostles  and  succeeding  ministers,  as  recorded  in  Mat- 
thew sxviii :  19,  20  : 

"  And  lo  I  am  tvith  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.'' ^ 

Now,  my  argument  is  this  :  The  phrase  "  /  am  tvith 
you,"  is  expressive  of  the  presence  of  a  Divine  agency,  dis- 
tinct from  all  instrumentality.  It  does  not  mean  the  pres- 
ence of  argument,  or  motive,  or  '■'■Truth,^'  or  anything  else 
belonging  to  mere  instrumentality.  It  means  the  spiritual 
presence  of  the  Divine  Being. 

In  support  of  this  argument  I  will  cite  the  following 
proofs : 

1.  Exodus  xxxiii :  14,  15  :  "  And  he  said,  My  presence 
shall  go  with  thee,  and  I  will  give  thee  rest.  And  he 
said  unto  him.  If  thy  presence  go  not  with  me,  carry  us 
not  up  hence."  Now,  I  ask,  can  any  one  f\iil  to  perceive 
that  Moses  understood  by  the  promise,  "My  presence 
shall  go  with  thee,"  something  distinct  from,  and  more 
than  mere  instrumentality  ?  He  evidently  understood 
the    promise   to   denote   the   spiritual   presence   of  Grod. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  231 

2.  Numbers  xiv :  42  :  "Go  not  up,  for  the  Lord  is  not 
among  you;  that  ye  may  not  be  smitten  before  your  ene- 
mies." Compare  Deut.  i :  42  ;  "And  the  Lord  said  unto 
me,  Say  unto  them,  Go  not  up,  neither  fight,  for  I  am 
not  among  you  :  lest  ye  be  smitten  before  your  enemies." 
Now,  is  it  not  certain,  that  Moses  understood  the  phrase, 
"  The  Lord  is  not  among  you,"  to  denote  the  absence, 
not  of  instrumentality,  but  of  the  spiritual  presence  or 
agency  of  God  ? 

3.  Deuteronomy  sx:  4:  "  For  the  Lord  your  God  is  he 
that  goeth  with  you,  to  fight  for  you  against  your  enemies." 
It  really  seems  a  work  of  supererogation  to  comment  upon 
this  passage.  Blindness  itself  can  see  that  the  spiritual 
presence  and  agency  of  God  is  meant.  Israel  was  that 
day  to  approach  into  battle  against  their  enemies,  but 
they  were  fearful  and  faint-hearted.  There  was  present 
with  them  all  the  instrumentalities  of  war;  still  they 
needed  something  else  to  fill  them  with  courage  and  make 
them  strong.  Well,  this  promise  of  God  was  that  some- 
thing else.  God  should  go  with  them  and  fight  for  them, 
i.  c,  give  efficiency  to  their  arras.  Then,  it  is  evident,  a 
spiritual  presence  and  agency  were  meant. 

4.  Deuteronomy  xxxi:  6,  8:  "  Be  strong,  and  of  a  good 
courage,  fear  not,  neither  be  afraid  of  them  ;  for  the  Lord 
thy  God,  he  it  is  that  doth  go  with  thee,  he  will  not  fail 
thee,  neither  forsake  thee:  fear  not,  neither  be  dismayed." 
I  defy  skepticism  itself  to  disbelieve  a  spiritual  agency  is 
here  intended.     It  can  mean  nothing  else. 

5.  Joshua  i :  5  :  "  There  shall  not  any  man  be  able  to 
stand  before  thee  all  the  days  of  thy  life  :  as  I  was  with 
Moses,  so  will  I  be  with  thee :  I  will  not  fail  thee,  nor 
forsake  thee."  Compare  verse  9 :  "  Have  not  I  com- 
manded thee?  Be  strong,  and  of  good  courage,  be  not 
afraid,  neither  be  thou  dismayed:  for  the  Lord  thy  God 


232       an'  examination  of  lard's  review  of 

is   with  thee  whithersoever   thou  goest."     Nothing  else 
can  be  intended  here  but  a  Divine  presence  and  agency. 

6.  1  Chronicles  xxviii :  20:  "And  David  said  to  Solo- 
mon his  son,  Be  strong,  and  of  good  courage,  and  do  it: 
fear  not,  nor  be  dismayed,  for  the  Lord  God,  even  my  God, 
will  be  with  thee  ;  he  will  not  fail  thee,  nor  forsake  thee, 
until  thou  hast  finished  all  the  work  for  the  service  of 
the  house  of  the  Lord."  Now,  from  all  this  let  me  ask, 
what  was  Solomon  authorized  to  expect  in  his  arduous 
labor  in  building  God's  house  ?  Was  it  not  the  spiritual 
presence  and  agency  or  assistance  of  the  God  of  his  father 
David?  And  did  he  not  depend  upon  that  for  success? 
Evidently  he  did. 

7.  I  will  give  you  but  one  more  passage  :  Isaiah  :  xli : 
10:  "Fear  thou  not;  for  I  am  with  thee:  be  not  dis- 
mayed ;  for  T  am  thy  God  :  I  will  strengthen  thee  ;  yea,  I 
will  help  thee ;  yea,  I  will  uphold  thee  with  the  right  hand 
of  my  righteousness,"  This  is  a  prophetic  promise  made 
to  the  Church.  What  does  it  denote?  Evidently,  the 
same  supernatural  agency  recognized  in  all  the  preceding 
passages. 

And  now,  if  in  all  these  seven  passages,  the  phrase, 
"I  am  with  thee,"  means  a  spiritual  presence  and  agency, 
does  it  not  mean  the  same  thing  in  the  promise  at  the 
end  of  the  commission?  It  most  certainly  does.  The 
phrase,  "  I  am  with  thee,"  can  not  mean  the  spiritual 
presence  and  agency  of  God  in  every  other  place  where 
it  occurs  in  the  Bible,  and  then  in  the  commission  have 
no  such  meaning.  Did  this  phrase  or  promise  authorize 
Moses,  and  Israel,  and  Joshua,  and  Solomon,  to  expect 
a  spiritual  presence  and  agency  to  aid  them  in  their  un- 
dertakings, and  yet  authorize  no  such  expectation  in  the 
minister  of  the  Gospel  as  he  is  teaching  the  nations? 
Were  such  a  presence  and  agenc}'  necessary  to  the  sue- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  233 

cess  of  these  servants  of  God,  and  yet  unnecessary  to  the 
success  of  the  minister  of  the  Gospel  ?  Would  the  Savior 
promise  what  is  not  necessary?  Would  he  promise  what 
he  will  not  fulfill  ?  None  dare  to  answer  these  questions 
in  the  aflBrmative.  Then  this  promise  in  the  commission 
is  a  proof,  both  of  the  presence  and  the  necessity  of  a 
Divine  agency  distinct  from  the  truth,  in  order  to  the 
conversion  of  sinners. 

There  is  but  one  way,  that  I  can  possibly  conceive  of, 
in  which  an  attempt  can  be  made  to  evade  the  force  and 
conclusiveness  of  this  argument.  That  is,  to  limit  the 
promise  to  the  apostles  and  the  apostolic  age,  But 
such  a  limitation  would  be  perfectly  gratuitous.  It  is 
suggested  by  nothing  in  the  commission,  or  in  the  nature 
of  the  case.  It  can  be  suggested  by  nothing  but  exi- 
gency of  the  hypothesis,  that  the  "  truth  alone  con- 
verts." Hence  the  suggestion  itself  proves  the  hypoth- 
esis to  be  false  :  for  there  can  be  no  reason  given  for  the 
limitation  of  the  promise,  that  will  not  be  a  reason  for 
the  limitation  of  the  command  which  it  accompanies. 
Every  man  upon  whom  rests  the  obligation  of  the  com- 
mand, is  entitled  to  the  encouragement  and  support  of 
the  promise. 

I  hold,  then,  that  it  is  simply  certain  that  if  this  com- 
mand is  now  obligatory  upon  us,  the  promise  is  now 
being  fulfilled  to  us. 

I  attach  much  importance  to  this  argument.  With  my 
mind  it  has  great  force,  and  hence  I  call  especial  atten- 
tion to  it. 

The  presence  of  the  Savior  is  promised  to  his  min- 
isters, as  they  go  and  teach,  and  baptize,  and  instruct 
the  nations — to  the  end  of  time.  This  presence  means 
more  than  the  presence  of  the  truth,  or  anything  else 
belonging  to  instrumentality.     This  presence  is  necessary 


234  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD'S    REVIEW    01' 

to  the  success  of  those  who  preach  the  Gospel.     There- 
fore, the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend  is  true. 

§3. 

My  third  argument  is  founded  on  Acts  xviii :  9,  10 : 

"  Tlien  spake  the  Lord  to  Paul  in  the  night,  hy  a  visioii, 
Be  not  afraid,  hut  speak,  and  hold  not  thy  peace:  for  I  am 
with  thee,  and  no  man  shall  set  on  thee,  to  hurt  thee;  for  I 
have  much  people  in  this  cityy 

It  is  clear  to  my  mind  that  a  spiritual  presence  and 
agency  are  here  meant.  It  was  promised  to  Paul,  and 
was  the  ground  of  his  hope  of  success  at  Corinth.  The 
phrase,  "  I  am  with  thee,"  in  this  passage,  is  identical 
with  the  promise  in  the  commission,  which  we  have  just 
considered.  And,  hence,  all  the  parallel  Scriptures  then 
brought  forward  can,  with  equal  propriety,  be  brought  to 
bear  here.     I  hope  the  reader  will  bear  them  in  mind. 

We  are  told  (verse  11)  that  Paul  continued  at  Corinth 
after  this  Divine  promise  was  given  to  him,  "a  year 
and  six  months,  teaching  the  word  of  God  among  them." 
Now  this  evidently  shows  that  Paul  saw  in  the  promise, 
the  presence  and  assurance  of  an  agency  "  distinct  from 
and  above  the  truth  ;"  for  he  had  the  presence  of  the 
truth  hfforc  this  promise  was  made  unto  him,  and  hence 
needed  no  assurance  that  the  trutli  would  be  with  him. 
Can  any  one  suppose  that  if  Paul,  when  God  said  "  I  am 
with  thee,"  had  understood  nothing  but  the  presence  of 
the  truth  to  be  meant,  he  would  have  received  additional 
encouragement,  and  in  consequence  protract  his  stay  a 
year  and  six  months  at  Corinth?     I  think  not. 

But  we  have  proof  in  Paul's  first  epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, that  he  regarded  his  success  among  them  as 
coming  from  God.  See  chapter  iii,  and  verses  3,  4,  5,  6, 
7 :  "  For  ye  are  yet  carnal :  for  whereas  there  is  among 
you  envying,  and  strife,  and  divisions,  are  ye  not  carnal, 
?)nd  walk  as  men?     For  while  one  saith,  I  am  of  Paul, 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  235 

and  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,  are  yc  not  carnal?  Who, 
then,  is  Paul?  and  who  is  Apollos?  but  ministers  by 
whom  ye  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man.  1 
have  planted,  Apollos  watered  :  but  Grod  gave  the  increase. 
So,  then,  neither  is  he  that  planteth  anything,  neither  he 
that  watereth  :  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase." 

Now,  here  the  apostle  plainly  states  what  he  and 
Apollos  did,  and  the  relation  which  they  respectively 
sustained  to  the  faith  and  conversion  of  the  Corinthians. 
And  also  what  God  did,  and  the  relation  He  sustained  to 
their  faith  and  conversion.  "  Ye  believed,  as  the  Lord 
gave  to  every  man" — "God  gave  the  increase."  And 
what  seems  to  give  this  fact  more  prominence  and 
strength,  is  this:  that  for  this  reason,  or  in  view  of  this 
fact,  Paul  condemns  their  '■^glorying"  in  him  or  Apollos, 
and  overlooking  the  Divine  agency  in  the  case.  As  Paul 
and  Apollos  were  only  instruments  in  their  conversion, 
they  were  nothing  and  deserved  nothing.  But  as  God 
did  the  work,  he  was  everything  and  should  have  all  the 
glory.  And  as  then  the  ''increase"  came,  not  from  the 
instrumentality,  but  from  God,  so  it  is  now.  And  as 
God  was  with  Paul  at  Corinth,  so  is  he  with  his  min- 
isters now.  And  as  he  gave  Paul  success,  so  he  gives 
us  success. 

§4. 
My  fourth  argument  I  base  upon  Acts  xi :  20,  21 : 
^^And  some  of  the.m  were  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene, 
which  when  they  ivere  come  to  Antioch,  spoke  unto  the  Gre- 
cians, preaching  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  was  with  them:  and  a  great  number  believed,  and 
turned  unto  the  Lord." 

Now,  here  note,  we  have  a  fact  stated,  viz.:  a  gretfi 
number  of  the  Grecians  at  Antioch,  believed  and  turned 
to  the  Lord.  And  we  also  have  the  cause  of  that  fact 
stated,  namely  : 


236  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

1.  Men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene  preached  to  them  the 
Lord  Jf'sus. 

2.  '■'■The  hand  of  the  Lord  icas  loith  them." 

Then,  does  this  passage  plainly  and  demonstratively 
show,  that  the  conversion  of  these  Grecians  was  owing  to 
two  causes :  the  truth  that  was  preached  to  them,  and  a 
Divine  agency  expressed  in  the  words,  "  the  hand  of  the 
Lord,  was  with  them." 

That  the  phrase,  "  hand  of  the  Lord,"  does  mean  a 
Divine  agency,  I  will  now  prove : 

1.  Exodus  xiii  :  3:  "And  Moses  said  unto  the  people, 
Remember  this  day  in  which  ye  came  out  from  Egypt, 
out  of  the  house  of  bondage  :  for  by  strength  of  hand 
the  Lord  brought  you  out  of  this  place."  This  passage 
needs  no  comment.  "Strength  of  hand"  can  not  mean 
the  instrumentalities  employed  in  the  release  of  the  Israel- 
ites.    It  must  mean  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

2.  Ezra  vii :  9  :  "  For  upon  the  first  day  of  the  first 
month  began  he  to  go  up  from  Babylon,  and  on  the  first 
day  of  the  fifth  month  came  he  to  Jerusalem  according 
to  the  good  hand  of  his  God  upon  him."  Now,  would 
Mr.  Lard,  or  any  one  else,  rob  God  of  his  glory  by  con- 
tending that  the  phrase,  "  the  good  hand  of  his  God  upon 
him,"  meant  something  else  than  a  Divine  agency? 

3.  Numbers  xi :  23  :  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses  : 
Is  the  Lord's  hand  waxed  short?  Thou  shalt  see  whether 
my  word  shall  come  to  pass  unto  thee  or  not."  Does  not 
this  passage  show  that  the  term,  "//te  Lord's  hand"  is  only 
another  designation  for  the  Divine  agency  ?  This  was 
to  bring  the  Divine  word  to  pass. 

4.  Joshua  iv :  23,  24  :  ''  For  the  Lord  your  God  dried 
up  the  waters  of  Jordan  from  before  you,  until  ye  were 
passed  over,  as  the  Lord  your  God  did  to  the  Red  Sea, 
which  he  dried  up  from  before  you  until  ye  were  gone 


Jeter's  campbellisji  exposed,  237 

over,  that  all  the  people  of  the  earth  might  know  the  hand 
of  the  Lord,  that  it  is  mighty :  that  ye  might  fear  the  Lord 
your  Grod  forever.''  Here,  "  the  hand  of  the  Lord,"  can 
mean  nothing  else  than  a  Divine  agency. 

5.  Judges  ii :  15:  "  Whithersoever  they  went  the  hand 
of  the  Lord  was  against  them  for  evil."  Comment  is 
unnecessary. 

6.  1  Samuel  vii :  13 :  "  So  the  Philistines  were  subdued, 
and  they  came  no  more  into  the  coasts  of  Israel :  and  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  was  against  the  Philistines  all  the  days 
of  Samuel."  (Compare  1  Samuel  v  :  6.)  The  meaning 
of  the  phrase,  "  hand  of  the  Lord,"  here,  can  not  be  in- 
nocently mistaken.  The  most  prejudiced  must  see  it 
means  a  Divine  agency. 

7.  1  Samuel  xiv :  15:  "But  if  ye  will  not  obey  the 
voice  of  the  Lord,  but  rebel  against  the  commandment 
of  the  Lord,  then  shall  the  hand  of  the  Lord  be  against 
you,  as  it  was  against  your  fathers."  This  "hand  of  the 
Lord"  can  mean  nothing  but  a  Divine  agency. 

8.  Isaiah  lix  :  1 :  "  Behold  the  Lord's  hand  is  not 
shortened  that  it  can  not  save."  This  passage  shows 
two  things,  namely: 

1st.  That  salvation  is  of  the  Lord's  hand. 

2d.  That  the  Lord's  hand  means  a  Divine  agency. 

9.  One  more  passage.  Isaiah  1 :  2  :  "  Wherefore,  when 
I  came,  was  there  no  man  ?  when  I  called,  was  there  none 
to  answer?  Is  my  hand  shortened  at  all,  that  it  can  not 
redeem  ?     Or  have  I  no  power  to  deliver  V 

Now,  I  maintain,  that  in  all  the  foregoing  nine  pas- 
sages, the  phrase,  "  The  Lord's  hand,"  is  expressive  of  a 
Divine  agency.  Then  it  must  be  expressive  of  the  same 
thing  in  Acts  xi :  21.  It  can  not  mean  a  Divine  agency 
in  everything  else,  and  then  the  very  moment  it  is  used 
■with  reference   to   the  conversion  of  sinners   drop   that 


238  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

meaning!  The  G-recians  at  Antioch,  then,  were  convert- 
ed by  the  truth,  and  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above 
the  truth;  and,  as  they  were,  so  are  all  other  sinners; 
therefore,  our  position  on  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  conversion  is  true. 

§5. 

My  fifth  argument  I  base  on  Acts  xiv  :  27  :  "And  when 
they  were  come,  and  had  gathered  the  Church  together, 
they  rehearsed  all  that  God  had  done  with  them,  and  how 
he  had  opened  the  door  of  faith  to  the  Gentiles." 

Now,  my  argument  is  this  :  Whenever  the  Bible  says 
that  God  does  anything  with  or  by  an  individual,  it  means 
that  he  exerts  a  supernatural  agency. 

Examples  in  point  can  be  found  in  all  parts  of  the 
Bible.  I  cite  a  good  many  which  I  trust  the  reader  will 
examine,  and  then  quote  a  few  as  specimens  :  Lev.  viii : 
36;  x:  10;  xxvi :  46.  Num.iv:  37-45;  ix  :  23 ;  x  :  13; 
XV :  23:  xvi :  40;  xxvii  :  23;  xxxvi :  13.  Joshua  xiv: 
2;  XX  :  2;  xxi :  2-8;  xxii :  9.  Judges  iii :  4.  1  Kings 
viii:  53-56.     2  Chron.  xxxiii :  8  ;  xxxv  :  6.     Neh.  ix  :  14. 

1  give  the  reader  the  following  specimens  : 

Psalm  Ixxvii :  20  :  "  Thou  leddest  thy  people  like  a 
flock,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron." 

2  Samuel  iii :  18  :  "  Now  then  do  it :  for  the  Lord 
hath  spoken  of  David,  saying,  By  the  hand  of  my  serv- 
ant David  I  will  save  my  people  Israel  out  of  the  hand 
of  the  Philistines,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  all  their  ene- 
mies." 

1  Kings  xiv  :  18  :  "  According  to  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
which  he  spoke  by  the  hand  of  his  servant  Ahijah  the 
prophet." 

2  Kings  xiv  :  27  :  "  But  he  [the  Lord]  saved  them  by 
the  hand  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Joash." 


Jeter's  campbellism  ExrosEC.  239 

2  Chronicles  x:  15:  "That  the  Lord  might  perform  hia 
word,  which  he  spoke  by  the  hand  of  Ahijah." 

These  specimens  must  suflSce. 

No  one,  it  seems  to  me,  can  fail  to  see  in  each  of  these 
examples,  proof  of  the  presence  of  a  supernatural  agency. 
The  men  spoken  of  were  merely  instruments.  What  was 
done  by  them,  was  done  by  them  only  as  instruments. 
God  did  it  as  the  efficient  agent.  So  in  the  passage  at 
the  head  of  this  argument.  Paul  and  Barnabas  are 
spoken  of  as  instruments.  What  was  done  among  the 
Gentiles  God  did  hy  them. 

My  sixth  argument  I  base  upon  Galatians  iv  :  21-29: 
"  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not 
hear  the  law  ?  For  it  is  written  that  Abraham  had  two 
sons ;  the  one  by  a  bond-maid,  the  other  by  a  free-woman. 
But  he  who  was  of  the  bond-woman,  was  born  after  the 
flesh;  but  he  of  the  free-woman  was  by  promise.  Which 
things  are  an  allegory  ;  for  these  are  the  two  covenants  ; 
the  one  from  the  Mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bond- 
age, which  is  Agar.  For  this  Agar  is  Mount  Sinai  in 
Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem  which  now  is,  and  is 
in  bondage  with  her  children.  But  Jerusalem  which  is 
above  is  free,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all.  For  it  is 
written,  Rejoice,  thou  barren  that  bearest  not ;  break 
forth  and  cry,  thou  that  travailest  not;  for  the  desolate 
hath  many  more  children  than  she  which  hath  an  hus- 
band. Now  we,  brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children 
of  promise.  But  as  then  he  that  was  born  after  the  flesh 
persecuted  him  that  was  born  after  the  Spirit,  even  so  it 
is  now." 

In  this  '^allegory"  we  note  the  following  points: 

1.  The  two  wives  of  Abraham,  Agar  and  Sarah,  were 
typical  of  the  two  covenants — the  old  (Exod.  xix  and 
xx)  and   the    new,   (Jer.   xxxi  :   31-33  ;   Compare   Heb. 


240  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   KEVIEW   OF 

viii,)  and  the  two  organizations  based  upon  these  cov- 
enants, to  wit:  The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tions. 

2.  The  two  sons  born  of  these  two  wives — Ishmael 
and  Isaac — were  typical  of  the  members  of  these  cove- 
nants and  dispensations. 

3.  As  Ishmael  was  brought  into  being  by  ordinary 
generation,  so  were  the  members  of  the  old  covenant,  the 
children  of  the  Jewish  Church,  (the  Jerusalem  that  now 
is.)  They  were  members  by  virtue  of  being  the  children 
of  Abraham  by  natural  descent.  And  as  Isaac  received 
his  existence  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  do  the 
members  of  the  new  covenant  receive  theirs.  As  Isaac 
was  born  after  the  Spirit^  so  are  the  members  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  (or  the  Jerusalem  from  above.) 

Now,  just  as  we  recognize  the  agency  or  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  birth  of  Isaac,  so  do  we  recognize 
his  agency  or  operation  in  the  new  birth  of  every  Chris- 
tian, every  babe  in  Christ.  Nothing  less  than  this  can 
be  meant.  The  same  instrumentality  is  recognized  in 
the  birth  of  both  these  sons  of  Abraham,  but  not  the 
same  agency.  In  the  one  case,  instrumentality  only 
was  employed  ;  in  the  other,  there  is  also  seen  a  Divine 
agency.  Now,  bring  a  man  into  the  Christian  Church  by 
simple  instrumentality — no  change  but  such  as  can  be 
produced  by  "  the  unaided  light  and  force  of  Divine 
truth" — and  he  will  be  born  after  the  flesh.  He  will 
have  the  new  covenant  in  his  hand  just  as  the  Jews 
had  the  old.  But,  as  the  law  of  God  must  be  written 
on  the  heart  and  printed  on  the  mind,  it  can  not  be 
written  by  ink,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God, 
(2  Cor.  iii :  3.) 

I  found  my  seventh  and  last  argument  upon  the  final 
conversion  of  the  Jews.     That  the  Jews  are  finally  to  be 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  241 

converted,  is  clearly  taught  in   the  word  of  God.      See 
the  following  passages  : 

1.  Romans  xi:  25-27:  "  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  that 
ye  should  be  ignorant  of  this  mystery,  (lest  ye  should  be 
wise  in  your  own  conceits,)  that  blindness  in  partis  hap- 
pened to  Israel,  until  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come 
in.  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved  :  as  it  is  written, 
There  shall  come  out  of  Zion  the  Deliverer,  and  shall 
turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob  :  for  this  is  my  cove- 
nant unto  them,  when  I  shall  take  away  their  sins." 

Upon  this  passage  I  remark  :  This  "  blindness  " 
which  " happened  to  Israel,"  is  judicial,  and  will  continue 
for  a  specified  period.  See  2  Corinthians  iii  :  13-16: 
"  And  not  as  Moses,  which  put  a  vail  over  his  face,  that 
the  children  of  Israel  could  not  steadfjistly  look  to  the 
end  of  that  which  is  abolished:  but  their  minds  were 
blinded  :  for  until  this  day  remaineth  the  same  vail  un- 
taken  away  in  the  reading  of  the  Old  Testament:  which 
vail  is  done  away  in  Christ.  But  even  unto  this  day, 
when  Moses  is  read,  the  vail  is  upon  their  heart.  Never- 
theless, when  it  shall  turn  to  the  Lord,  the  vail  shall  be 
taken  away."  Now,  during  all  this  period,  the  Jews 
have  the  written  word  —  the  truth  —  but  they  have  not 
that  agency  which  will  be  at  last  employed  in  their  con- 
version. 

2.  In  their  conversion  a  Divine  agency  will  be  era- 
ployed,  here  called  the  "Deliverer."  This  agency  is 
none  other  than  the  Spirit  of  God.  See  Isaiah  lix  :  20, 
21:  "And  the  Redeemer  shall  come  to  Zion,  and  unto 
them  that  turn  from  transgression  in  Jacob,  saith  the 
Lord.  As  for  me,  this  is  my  covenant  with  them,  saith 
the  Lord  :  My  Spirit  that  is  upon  thee,  and  my  words 
which  I  have  put  in  thy  mouth,  shall  not  depart  out  of 
thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed,  nor  out  of 

11 


242  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARDS    REVIEW    OF 

the  mouth  of  thy  seed's  seed,  saith  the  Lord,  from  hence- 
forth and  forever." 

Again,  Isaiah  xxxii :  13-17:  "Upon  the  land  of  my 
people  shall  come  up  thorns  and  briers ;  yea,  upon  all 
the  houses  of  joy  in  the  joyous  city  :  because  the  palaces 
shall  be  forsaken;  the  multitude  of  the  city  shall  he  left; 
the  forts  and  towers  shall  be  for  dens  forever,  a  joy  of 
■wild  asses,  a  pasture  of  flocks.  Until  the  Spirit  be  poured 
upon  us  from  on  hiijh,  and  the  wilderness  be  a  fruitful 
field,  and  the  fruitful  field  be  counted  for  a  forest.  Then 
judgment  shall  dwell  in  the  wilderness,  and  righteousness 
remain  in  the  fruitful  field.  And  the  work  of  righteous- 
ness shall  be  peace ;  and  the  effects  of  righteousness,  quiet- 
ness and  assurance  forever." 

Now,  these  two  passages  from  Isaiah  fully  teach  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  conversion  of  the  Jews. 

Here  I  close.  Enough  has  been  said  to  settle  the 
question.  I  feel  sure  that  with  all  the  impartial  and  can- 
did who  shall  examine  what  has  been  written,  our  side  is 
triumphant. 

And  now  let  me  say  to  all  our  Churches,  and  brethren 
in  the  ministry,  it  becomes  us  to  be  profoundly  penetra- 
ted with  the  doctrine  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
conversion.  Hence  arises  our  hope  of  the  conversion  of 
that  multitude  which  no  man  can  number,  who  at  last 
shall  come  from  the  East  and  from  the  West,  from  the 
North  and  from  the  South,  and  sit  down  with  Abraham, 
and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  When  we 
cast  our  eyes  abroad  and  contemplate  the  nations  that 
now  sit  in  darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death,  and  send  to 
them  the  missionary  of  the  cross  with  that  Gospel  which 
bringeth  life  and  immortality  to  light,  we  can  look  up  to 
heaven  and  pray  and  hope.  Knowing  who  it  is  that  has 
said  the  Father  will  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that 


JF.TER's    CAMl'BEr.LlsM    EXl'OSKD.  243 

ask  liiui.  And  when  wc  contemplate  tlie  condition — the 
blindness— of  that  scattered  and  pealed  people  from 
whom  salvation  first  came  to  us,  and  who  still  suffer  un- 
der that  withering  curse,  imprecated  by  their  fathers  when 
tliey  said  in  the  hall  of  Pilate,  His  blood  be  upon  us  and 
our  children,  and  who  must  yet  suffer  until  the  fullness 
of  the  Gentiles  are  come  in,  we  yet  anticipate  the  day 
when  they  will  turn  and  look  upon  him  whom  they  have 
pierced,  and  mourn.  God  will  pour  out  his  Spirit  upon 
them  from  on  high,  and  then  the  "children  of  Israel 
shall  come,  they  and  the  children  of  Judah,  together, 
going  and  weeping ;  they  shall  go  and  seek  the  Lord 
their  God.  They  shall  ask  the  way  to  Zion,  with  their 
faces  thitherward,  saying.  Come,  and  let  us  join  ourselves 
to  the  Lord  in  a  perpetual  covenant  that  shall  not  be  for- 
gotten. 

We  can  very  well  afford  to  let  the  Campbellites  toil  on, 
if  they  choose,  in  a  field,  which,  like  the  mountains  of 
Gilboa,  receives  no  dew  from  heaven,  while  we  hope  for 
and  receive  the  former  and  the  latter  rains.  Let  us  see 
to  it  that  we  grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  neither 
by  distrust  on  the  one  hand,  nor  self-sufl5ciency  on  the 
other.  Let  us  sow  our  seed  in  the  morning,  and  in  the 
evening  not  withhold  our  hand,  as  we  know  not  which 
shall  prosper,  this  or  that ;  and  when  we  see  the  tender 
plants  of  righteousness  springing  up  and  growing  to  ma- 
turity and  yielding  precious  fruit,  let  us  as  with  one  heart 
and  one  mouth  exclaim,  "God  giveth  the  increase." 

Earnest  prayer  winged  with  faith  will  pierce  the  skies 
and  hang  our  weakness  upon  the  arm  of  the  Almighty. 
Such  prayer  will  bring  down  power  from  on  high  ;  for  to 
it  Omnipotence  longs  to  yield.  And  when  we  feel  that 
our  weakness  is  connected  with  the  almightiness  of  God 
what  have  we  to  ferir?  what  obstacle  may  we  not  over- 


24-4  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's   REVIEW. 

come?  Let  us  look  forward  to  the  day  when  "the  mul- 
titudes of  camels  shall  come  up ;  the  dromedaries  of 
Midian  and  Ephah  ;  all  they  from  Sheba  shall  come; 
they  shall  bring  gold  and  incense,  and  they  shall  show 
forth  the  praises  of  the  Lord."  "Then  the  majesty  of 
all  earthly  sovereigns  will  bow  to  the  majesty  of  Jesus. 
All  the  spoils  of  earthly  gx-andeur  will  be  laid  at  his 
feet,  and  none  will  be  exalted  in  that  day  but  the  Lord 
and  his  Messiah."  The  controversies  of  the  professed 
followers  of  the  Redeemer  will  be  at  an  end.  Every  voice 
will  be  hushed  but  the  voice  of  Jehovah,  exclaiming  in 
words  of  living  light,  "Not  by  might,  or  by  power,  but 
by  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  Then  the  silence 
will  break  with  one  long  and  unanimous  Amen. 


PART   II. 


AN   EXAMINATION 


LARD'S  REVIEW  OF  JETER. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

BAPTISM    FOR    REMISSION    OF    SINS. 
§1- 

I  NOW  coiiie,  in  my  judgment,  to  the  strongest  part 
of  Mr.  Lard's  book.  He  has  done  all  that  can  be 
done  for  the  Campbellite  side  of  this  question.  It  will 
be  useless  for  any  of  his  brethren  to  follow  him.  He  has 
brought  forward  every  passage  of  Scripture  that  can,  by 
any  ingenuity,  be  forced  into  his  service,  and  he  has 
made  the  best  possible  use  of  it.  I  feel  quite  sure  that 
he  has  exhausted  all  his  resources.  When,  therefore,  I 
shall  have  overthrown  his  positions,  and  wrested  from 
him  his  proof-text.s — as  I  feel  quite  sure  I  shall  do— his 
ingenious  superstructure  will  fall  into  ruins. 

Mr.  Lard,  before  he  comes  directly  to  the  point  of  bap- 
tism for  the  remission  of  sins,  as  usual,  gives  us  some 
preliminary  matters.  He  devotes  one  chapter  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Identity  of  Regeneration,  Conversion,  and 
Baptism. 

1.  However,  he  complains  heavily  of  Mr.  Jeter  because 
he  pronounces  Mr.  Campbell's  views  "  obscure,  variable, 

(247^ 


248  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OP 

and  contradictory."  After  a  little  blustering,  and  a  few 
exclamation  points,  Mr.  Lard  coolly  remarks  :  "  Of  these 
feigned  contradictions  we  shall  take  no  notice."  Now, 
whoever  turns  to  "Jeter's  Campbellism  Examined,"  pp. 
191-197,  and  reads  them  carefully,  will  admire  Mr.  Lard's 
discretion. 

Mr.  Lard  shows  here  one  thing  very  plainly,  namely, 
that  lie  is  a  good  Campbellite.  He  quotes  Mr.  Jeter  as 
saying:  "I  do  not  charge  Mr.  Campbell  with  denying 
the  necessity  of  a  moral  change  preparatory  to  baptism. 
lie  has  written  equivocally — perhaps  it  would  be  better 
to  say  obscurely — on  the  subject,"  etc.,  and  then  replies  : 
"We  regret  that  we  can  not  be  obliged  to  Mr.  Jeter  for 
this  '  admission.'  Had  it  been  made  for  Mr.  CamphcUs 
sake,  we  might  have  been  so,"  etc.  Now,  why  should 
Mr.  Lard  feel  obliged  for  an  admission  made  for  Mr. 
CamphelVs  sake?  Is  Mr.  Campbell  any  more  to  Mr. 
Lard  than  any  other  good  man? 

2.  Mr.  Lard  quotes  again  :  "  Mr.  Campbell  has  written 
equivocally — perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  say  obscurely 
— on  the  necessity  of  a  moral  change  before  baptism  ;" 
and  then  adds:  "Candidly,  we  are  grieved  at  this."  Why 
should  Mr.  Lard  be  grieved  ?  The  charge  is  made  against 
Mr.  Gimphell,  not  against  Mr.  Lard.  Ah,  he  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  family;  and  like  a  dutiful  son  he  feels  jealous 
of  the  honor  of  his  father!  Mr.  Lard  taxes  all  his 
powers  to  eulogize  Mr.  Campbell,  while  he  empties  all 
his  vials  of  wrath  on  Mr.  Jeter. 

3.  Mr.  Jeter  says,  what  Mr.  Campbell  "certainly  main- 
tains is,  not  that  we  are  regenerated  by  baptism,  but  that 
baptism  is  itself  regeneration,  and  the  only  personal  re- 
generation." 

Mr.  Lard  replies  :  "  We  presume  that  Mr.  Jeter  has, 
in  this  extract,  come  as  near  doing  Mr.  Campbell  justice, 


JKTEll's    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  249 

as  he  has  ever  come  doing  any  opponent  justice  ;  and  he 
is  far  from  doing  him  justice.  He  certainly,  however, 
does  Mr.  Campbell  the  justice  to  acquit  him  of  holding 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  for  which  we  tlianh 
him  sincerely  and  heartily^ 

Does  not  this  show  that  Mr.  Campbell's  reputation,  and 
Mr.  Lard's /ee^t»^s,  are  almost,  if  not  altogether,  insep- 
arable ? 

Mr.  Lard  now  proceeds  to  tell  us  what  Mr.  Campbell 
really  does  maintain.     Let  us  be  all  attention  : 

"  What  Mr.  Campbell  certainly  maintains,  is  :  1st.  That 
regeneration  and  the  new  birth  are  identical ;  2d.  That 
the  new  birth  consists  of  two  parts,  to  wit:  being  begot- 
ten, or  quickened,  and  being  baptized  ;  and  3d.  That, 
therefore,  baptism  is  not  itself  regeneration,  /.  c,  the 
whole  of  it.  But  because  baptism,  as  a  part,  and  especi- 
ally as  the  last  part,  of  regeneration,  implies  the  other 
and  preceding  part,  Mr.  Campbell  sometimes  calls  it  re- 
generation, precisely  as  faith  sometimes  stands  for  the 
whole  Gospel,  in  which,  however,  itr4s  merely  a  single 
item.  In  this  sense,  but  i9 ^  Vt;tlf^  H^^  he  maintain 
that  baptism  is  itself  regen#rtB^r." 

It  is  a  little  amusing  to  heat  Mr.  Lnrd  thank  Mr. #eter 
"sincerely  and  hinftilj"  for  acquitting"  Mr.  Campbell 
from  the  char!:^|^%|(fcfl'rig  to  baptismal  regeneration, 
and  then  see,  him  turlf  witness  against  him  himself 

I,  like  Mr.  Jeter,  had  supposed,  until  I  read  Mr.  Lard, 
that  Mr.  Campbell  taught  that  baptism  itself  is  regen- 
eration. And  I  do  not  even  now  know  how  else  to 
understand  the  following  passage:  '■'■  Regeneration  in  there- 
fore the  art  of  being  horn.  Hence  its  connection  always 
with  water.  Eeader,  reflect;  what  a  jargon,  what  a  con- 
fusion, have  the  mystic  doctors  made  of  this  metaphorical 

expression,  and  this  topic  of  regeneration  !     To  call  the 
ir'= 


250  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

receiving  of  any  spirit,  or  any  influence,  or  energy,  or  any 
operation  on  the  heart  of  man,  regeneration,  is  an  abuse 
of  all  speech,  as  well  as  a  departure  from  the  diction  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  loho  calls  nothing  personal  regeneration, 
except  the  act  of  immersion." — Christ.  Rest.,  pp.  206,  207. 
If  this  extract  does  not  confine  the  meaning  of  the 
term  regeneration  to  immersion,  and  to  immersion  alone, 
there  is  no  meaning  in  words.  But  hereafter  I  stand 
corrected.  I  shall,  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Lard,  say 
that  Mr.  Campbell  teaches  that  baptism  is  only  a  part  of 
regeneration.  The  difference,  then,  between  the  Camp- 
bellites  and  us  is  :  we  hold  that  regeneration  consists  in 
^'giving  a  ho^j/  disposition  to  the  mind.,'^  and,  therefore, 
must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  precede  baptism.  But 
Campbellites  hold  that  man  is  only  begotten — quickened 
— before  baptism  ;  and  that  this  begetting  or  quickening 
is  only  a  part  of  regeneration.  It  is  regeneration  hegnn. 
Baptism  is  the  birth  of  the  begotten,  and  must,  therefore, 
take  place  before  the  person  is  or  can  be  regenerated. 
Then^  after  all,  Off^pbellites  hold  to  baptismal  regener- 
ation !  If'  a^y^)  JP?omp^^nds  all  its  parts,  and  can 
not  exist  without  ther^^^Siefa'tlon 'must  comprehend 
all"^s*  parts  and  ""can  not'exist 'wi front  them.  And, 
therefore,  as  baptism  fs  a  ^Kn^^Jre^neration,  regener- 
ation can  not  exist  withoutntT^^i^metj,  fs  taptismal 

.»:«  ai^*  *^'.»  .^  .  ^< 


regeneration.  "'^'^ •*■•  •^'*  ♦^*  •*^'-\ 

«.§i^.j '■   • '*  *■'    ■ --N.^  .^  ' -.:• 

As  Mr.  Lard  has  made  bapft.s?^  ^art'of  reGrenei-atlon*, 
so  has  he  made  it  a  part  of  conversion.  His  words 
are  : 

"  Next,  in  regard  to  the  word  conversion.  All  we  have 
to  say  on  this  term  shall  consist  in  a  few  remarks  on  the 
following  passages:   'Wherefore  my  sentence  is,  that  ye 


JKTF.K's    f  AMI'LIELLISM    F.XrOSED.  251 

truublc  not  tlieiu  who  from  among  the  Gentiles  are  turned 
to  God!'  The  word  here  rendered,  'are  turned,'  la  the 
word  which,  in  other  places,  is  rendered  convert,  conver- 
sion, etc.  It  was  here  applied  to  the  first  Gentile  con- 
verts to  Christianity,  and  comprehended  all  that  made 
the  difference  hetween  the  alien  and  the  baptized  person, 
and  hence,  of  course,  baptism  itself.  Since,  therefore,  it 
applied  to  the  whole  of  a  process  of  which  baptism  is  a 
part,  conversion  and  baptism  must,  to  a  certain  extent 
at  least,  be  identical." 

Mr.  Lard's  mistake  here  is  this  :  he  stretches  the 
meaning  of  the  word  conversion  so  as  to  make  it  com- 
prehend what  was  never  in  its  signification.  While  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  Gentiles  spoken  of  by  James, 
(Acts  XV :  19,)  were  baptized,  I  do  not,  like  Mr.  Lard, 
learn  that  fact /Vy??i  the  word  conversion.  I  infer  it  from 
the  well-known  fact  that  the  apostles  unifonnli/  baptized 
those  turned  to  God  by  their  ministry.  If  baptism  was 
nowhere  enjoined,  and  if  no  mention  was  made  of  its 
administration  in  any  case,  could  Mr.  Lard  learn  it  from 
the  word  conversion?  Never.  Yet  he  could  learn  all 
that  the  word  means. 

The  next  passage  on  which  Mr.  Lard  comments  is  : 
"Repent  ye  therefore  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins 
may  be  blotted  out,"  etc. — Acts  iii :  19.  Upon  this  pas- 
sage he  remarks : 

"  The  word  conversion,  then,  did  not,  in  this  case, 
denote  belief,  since  it  was  believers  who  were  commanded 
to  be  converted.  Neither  did  it  denote  repentance,  since 
this  is  denoted  by  its  appropriate  term.  What,  then,  did 
it  denote?  After  belief  and  repentance  what  remains? 
Baptism  only.  Baptism,  then,  we  conclude,  was  that  part 
of  the  whole  process  of  turning  to  God,  which  the  word 
conversion  more  especially  applied  to  ;  hence,  to  this  ex- 


ztiZ       an  examination  of  lard  s  review  op 

tent,  and  in  this  sense,  but  in  no  other,  conversion  and 
baptism  are  identical." 

Here  Mr.  Lard,  as  I  conceive,  has  made  several  mis- 
takes : 

1.  He  says,  conversion,  in  this  case,  could  not  denote 
belief,  since  believers  were  commanded  to  be  converted. 
Now,  I  ask,  from  what  part  of  the  context  did  he  learn 
that  in  Acts  iii :  19,  believers  were  commanded  to  be  con- 
verted ?  Peter  addressed  the  "  people  "  who  ran  together 
unto  him  and  John,  in  Solomon's  porch,  and  in  their 
blindness  were  disposed  to  give  them  the  credit  of  the 
miracle  of  healing,  which  they  had  just  witnessed,  as  if 
done  by  their  own  power  or  holiness.  Were  these  people 
believers  loJien  Peter  began  to  speak  to  them  ?  They 
were  not.  Did  they  become  believers  before  he  reached 
this  part  of  his  discourse  ?  Of  this  we  have  no  evidence. 
There  is  not  a  verse  in  the  chapter  that  says  a  word 
about  their  believing.  We  are  told  in  the  fourth  verse 
of  the  following  chapter,  that  "  many  of  them  who  heard 
the  word  believed."  But  the  historian  says  nothing 
about  at  icliat  period  or  point  in  Peters  discourse  the}'  be- 
came  believers.  It  is  evident  they  were  not  believers 
vs'hen  the  apostle  began  to  preach  to  them.  And  it  is 
gratuitous  to  infer  that  they  had  become  believers  before 
he  uttered  the  words,  "  Repent,"  etc. 

2.  Another  mistake  of  Mr.  Lard's,  as  I  conceive,  is 
this :  That  conversion  can  not  mean  repentance.  Now, 
any  reflecting  mind  will  perceive  that  the  meaning  of 
the  two  terms,  repentance  and  conversion,  necessarily 
run  into  each  other.  Though  these  two  terms  are  not 
synonymous,  they  imply  each  other.  He  who  repents, 
turns.  He  who  turns,  repents.  Yet  it  is  not  tautological 
to  say,  Repent  and  turn.  The  apostles  preached  a  re- 
pentance which  was  toward  God,  a  repentance,  therefore, 


Jeter's  campbej.lism  exposed.  253 

alwa3-.s  associated  with  turning.  And  this  is,  as  I  con- 
ceive, the  import  of  the  language  of  Peter.  He  charged 
upon  them  the  guilt  of  denying  the  Holy  and  Just  One, 
and  desiring  a  murderer  in  his  stead — of  killing  the 
Prince  of  life.  Still,  there  was  one  palliation  :  "  through 
ignorance  "  they  did  it.  And  now  he  calls  upon  them, 
in  view  of  this  fact,  to  repent  and  be  converted,  i.  e.,  be 
turned  to  God.  They  might  sincerely  repent  and  yet  sup- 
pose their  sins  unpardonable,  and  give  themselves  up  to 
despair.  But  Peter's  words  give  them  hope.  Seasons 
of  refreshing  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  would  come, 
and  he  would  blot  out  their  sins.  Hence  they  should  not 
only  repent,  but  be  turned  to  God. 

Mr.  Lard  here  plainly  makes  conversion  and  regener- 
ation identical.  And  he  teaches  that  neither  can  exist 
without  baptism  :  for  surely,  if  baptism  is  a  part  of  both, 
it  is  essential  to  both. 

But  are  regeneration  and  conversion  identical  ?  I  pre- 
sume not.  Each  of  these  terms  has  its  own  meaning. 
Let  us  now  briefly  consider  that  meaning  : 

1.  Regeneration. — This  terra  implies  a  former  genera- 
tion. The  prefix  '■'■re''  implies  this.  The  following  is 
its  meaning  :  1st.  Man  was  created  holy.  He  had  within 
him  a  clean  heart  and  a  right  spirit.  He  possessed  spir- 
itual life.  2d,  But  man  fell,  and  from  that  moment  his 
heart  was  impure  and  his  spirit  unholy.  Henceforth  he 
was  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sins.  3d.  Regeneration 
reproduces  within  him  a  clean  heart  and  a  right  spirit, 
and  makes  him  alive.  He  becomes  a  new  creature. — 
2  Cor.  v:  17.  He  is  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind, 
and  puts  on  the  new  man,  which,  after  God,  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness. — Eph.  iv  :  23,  24. 

2.  Conversion. — This  word  strictly  signifies  turning. 
As  man  has  departed  from  God,  be  must  return  to  God. 


254  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARDS   REVIEW   OF 

This  the  word  conversion  expresses.  But  ■while  conver- 
sion is  simply  expressive  of  this,  it  implies  all  the  dispos- 
ing causes,  such  as  repentance,  faith,  etc.,  etc.  Hence, 
the  term  is  sometimes  used  as  a  general  name  for  the 
whole.  A  few  examples  of  its  use  will  fully  show  this. 
The  original  word  is  sometimes  translated  by  the  word 
convert,  and  sometimes  by  the  word  tnrn.  I  will,  there- 
fore, cite  passages  where  both  terms  are  employed  :  Matt, 
xiii :  15  :  "  For  this  people's  heart  is  waxed  gross,  and 
their  ears  are  dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  have  they 
closed  ;  lest  at  any  time  they  should  see  with  their  eyes, 
and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  should  understand  with 
their  hearts,  and  should  he  converted,  and  I  should  heal 
them."  This  is  a  quotation  from  Isaiah  vi :  10.  The 
quotation  is  also  to  be  found  in  Mark  iv :  12  ;  John  xii : 
40  ;  and  Acts  xxviii :  27.  In  all  these  passages  the  word 
conversion  can  have  no  allusion  to  baptism,  for  in  Isaiah 
there  is  no  such  allusion.  In  Luke  i :  16,  17,  the  word 
is  translated  turn  :  "  And  many  of  the  children  of  Israel 
shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God.  And  he  shall  go 
before  him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  turn  the 
hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,"  etc.  Here  the 
word  can  not  mean  baptism,  for  it  is  the  conversion  of 
the  heart.  Acts  xiv :  15  :  "  We  are  also  men  of  like 
passions  with  you,  and  preach  unto  you  that  ye  should 
turn  from  these  vanities  unto  the  living  God."  Can  the 
word  here  mean  baptism  ? 

I  need  quote  no  more.  Let  the  reader  consult  Luke 
xvii :  4 ;  Acts  ix  :  35  ;  xi :  21 ;  xxvi :  18-20  ;  James  v  : 
19,  20  ;  1  Peter  ii :  25. 

§3. 
I  now  come  to  that  portion  of  Mr.  Lard's  book  which 
treats  directly  on  "  the  remission  of  sins."'     I  can  indorse 


JETEU'S    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  255 

\fith  all  my  heart  his  opening  remarks,  and  here  I  adopt 
them  as  my  own  : 

"The  absorbing  interest  of  the  subject,  and  the  con- 
flicting opinions  which  exist  respecting  it,  should  make 
us  patient  in  the  collection  of  such  facts  as  seem  most 
likely  to  lead  to  sound  decisions  concerning  it,  as  well 
as  careful  in  combining  those  facts,  and  just  in  deduc- 
ing from  them  no  conclusion  which  they  do  not  warrant. 
From  the  mind  and  from  the  heart  every  preference  for 
any  view  of  the  subject,  which  it  is  not  clearly  the  inten- 
tion of  our  heavenly  Father  we  should  entertain,  should 
be  banished  completely  and  forever.  Upon  this  subject, 
at  least,  let  the  sincere  love  of  the  truth  direct  our 
thoughts." 

It  is  a  pity  that  Mr.  Lard  should  break  oiF  from  this 
train  of  noble  remarks,  and  write  as  he  has  done  about 
Mr.  Jeter.     Hear  him  : 

"  In  the  discussion  of  this  subject  Mr.  Jeter  consumes 
some  sixty-nine  pages  of  his  book.  Perhaps  we  should 
suppose  him  sincere.  It  is  not  impossible  he  may  be  so. 
But,  candidly,  this  part  of  his  book  aifords  no  feeble  evi- 
dence that  the  love  of  the  truth  dwells  not  in  his  heart." 

Whether  Mr.  Jeter  deserves  this  at  JMr.  Lard's  hands 
let  the  reader  turn  to  CamphclUsm  Examined,  and  read 
from  page  221  to  page  290,  and  then  decide.  I  question 
the  sincerity  of  no  man.  I  impugn  not  his  motives. 
Mr.  Lard  has  written  some  strange  things,  and  I  have 
freely  animadverted  upon  them,  but  I  have  never  doubted 
his  sincerity.  His  motives  I  leave  to  that  God  who  tries 
the  heart  and  reins. 

Mr.  Lard  comes  to  the  matter  at  issue  between  him 
and  Mr.  Jeter  thus  : 

"Jl/r.  Jeter  mainfams  that  a  j)n-son's  sins  are  remitted 
the  t'nstant  in  ivhich  he  becomes  a  penitent  believer,  and  con- 


256         .AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's    REVIEW    OP 

seqnentTy  hefore  and  lolthout  baptism.  From  this  we  dis- 
sent. We  maintain  that  the  sinner,  though  a  helievn',  is 
still  required  to  repent  and  he  baptized,  in  order  to  the  re- 
mission of  his  sins,  and,  consequently,  that  they  are  not 
remitted  before  and  without  baptism.'^ 

I  am  satisfied  with  the  proposition  here  assigned  to 
Mr.  Jeter.  I  shall  adopt  it  as  my  own,  and  upon  it  join 
issue  with  Mr.  Lard.  I  shi.ll  first  sustain  this  proposi- 
tion by  the  word  of  Grod ;  and  then,  secondly,  reply  to 
Mr.  Lard's  arguments  in  support  of  his. 

§  4. — ARGUMENT    FIRST. 

TIlis  position  agrees  with  express  loords  of  Scripture, 
ivhile  Mr.  Lard's  can  not  be  sustained  but  by  their  perver- 
sion. 

Under  this  argument  I  call  the  reader's  attention  to 
the  following  passages  : 

1.  Romans  i:  16,  17  :  "  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ:  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion to  every  one  that  believcth;  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also 
to  the  Greek.  For  therein  is  the  righteousness  of  God 
revealed  from  faith  to  faith  ;  as  it  is  written.  The  just 
shall  live  by  fait Ji." 

Now,  without  note  or  comment,  this  passage  fully  ac- 
cords with  my  position.  But  it  can  not  be  made  to  har- 
monize with  Mr.  Lard's,  because  the  quotation  from  the 
prophet  (Hab.  ii :  4)  with  which  it  terminates  prohibits 
it.  The  prophet,  when  he  said  "The.  just  shall  live 
by  faith,"  knew  and  thought  nothing  about  baptism. 
Then  if  it  was  the  intention  of  Paul  to  be  understood  as 
saying  the  Gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation, 
not  to  every  one  that  believes,  simply,  but  only  to  such 
believers  as  are  l)aptized,  he  should  not  have  quoted  the 
prophet  to  prove  it.     Can  Mr.  Lard  prove  his  position  by 


JETER  S    CAMPBELLIS.M    EXPQSED,  257 

this  passage  from  Habakkuk  ?  No.  No  more  could 
Paul.  My  position  is  supported  by  both  the  apostle  and 
the  prophet,  but  Mr.  Lard's  is  against  both. 

2.  Romans  iii :  21-31  :  "  But  now  the  righteousness 
of  God  without  the  law  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by 
the  law  and  the  prophets ;  even  the  righteousness  of  Grod, 
which  is  hy  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all,  and  upon  all 
them  that  believe;  for  there  is  no  difference  :  for  all  have 
sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God;  being  jus- 
tified freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus;  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propi- 
tiation, through  faith  -in  his  hlood,  to  declare  his  right- 
eousness for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through 
the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time 
his  righteousness :  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier 
of  him  which  helieveth  in  Jesus.  Where  is  boasting  then  ? 
It  is  excluded.  By  what  law?  of  works?  Nay;  but  by 
the  law  of  faith.  Therefore  we  conclude,  that  a  vian 
is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Is 
he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?  is  he  not  also  of  the 
Gentiles?  Yes,  of  the  Gentiles  also:  seeing  it  is  one 
God  which  shall  justify  the  circumcision  hy  faith.,  and 
uncircumcision  through  faith.  Do  we,  then,  make  void 
the  law  through  faith?  God  forbid:  yea,  we  establish  the 
law." 

I  have  emphasized  those  parts  in  this  long  quotation 
to  which  I  call  special  attention.  Upon  them  emphasis 
is  to  be  laid.  Do  they  not  teach  precisely  what  my  posi- 
tion teaches  ?  Do  they  not  conflict  with  Mr.  Lard's  ? 
But  let  me  amplify  a  little. 

1.  In  this  passage  the  apostle  expressly  teaches  God's 
method  of  justification.  It  became  him,  therefore,  to  ex- 
press everything  necessary  to  it;  not  only  on  God's  part, 
but  ai.so  on  ours.     And  we  can   not  suppose  he  has  not 


258  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

done  so  without  charging  him  with  tmfaithfidness.  Yet 
who  would  thus  charge  him?  But  note,  he  has  not  uttered 
a  syllable  concerning  baptism. 

2.  The  only  qualification  he  names  with  respect  to  man 
is  faith.  "  The  righteousness  of  God  is  by  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ."  It  is  "unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe." 
Jesus  Christ  is  "  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through 
faith  in  his  blood.  God  "justifieth  circumcision  by  faith, 
and  the  uncircumcision  through  faith."  The  apostle  not 
only  says  all  this,  but  he  says  it  in  opposition  to  the  idea 
that  works  have  any  place  in  the  scheme. 

3.  All  this  accords  perfectly  with  my  position.  But 
it  is  in  direct  opposition  to  Mr.  Lard's.  Yea,  more;  an 
attempt  to  reconcile  it  with  his  position  would  entirely 
pervert  it.  According  to  his  position,  God's  righteous- 
ness is  by  faith  and  baptism.  Jesus  Christ  is  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  and  baptism.  And 
God  justifies  the  circumcision  by  faith  and  baptism,  and 
the  uncircumcision  through  faith  and  baptism  ! 

4.  My  position  is  sustained  by  the  apostle's  manner  of 
meeting  objections  to  his  doctrine,  while  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  meet  them  upon  Mr.  Lard's  position. 

The  first  objection  is,  "  Where  is  boasting  then  ?"  The 
Jews  saw  that  the  argument  of  the  apostle  cut  %ip  by  the 
roots  all  their  grounds  of  boasting.  They  were  disposed 
to  think  the  Jew  had  many  advantages  over  the  Gentile, 
and  that  there  was  much  profit  in  circumcision.  But  if 
they  were  to  be  justified  simply  by  faith,  all  these  things 
must  go  for  nothing,  "  Even  so,"  says  the  apostle.  All 
boasting  is  excluded  "by  the  law  of  faith."  Now  it  is 
clear  to  my  mind  that  the  principle  laid  down  here  by 
the  apostle  as  eflfectually  excludes  baptism  from  the  Gos- 
pel rule  of  justification  as  it  does  circumcision,  for  bap- 
tism, like  circumcision,  is  a  positive  ritn — a  worJc  ;  and  if 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  259 

it  would  give  tlie  Jew  some  ground  of  boasting  to  allow 
his  circumcision  a  place  ia  the  scheme  of  justification,  so 
wouhl  if.,  too,  allow  a  place  to  his  baptism. 

The  second  objection  is :  "  Do  we  then  make  void 
the  law  through  faith?"  Paul  replies:  "By  no  means." 
Instead  of  making  void  the  law,  "  we  establish  the  law." 
Let  us  inquire  how  this  is.  Law  consists  of  two  parts, 
the  preceptive  and  the  penal.  A  violation  of  the  former 
renders  one  obnoxious  to  the  latter.  Well,  all  men  have 
violated  the  former,  and  are,  therefore,  obnoxious  to  the 
latter.  They  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation.  Now,  it  is 
proposed  to  seek  out  a  plan  for  their  justification  that 
will  not  make  void  the  law.  The  Jew  supposed  that  that 
plan  must  be  a  justification  by  works.  This  plan,  how- 
ever, loould  make  void  the  law  for  the  following  reason  : 
No  loorks  that  the  sinner  could  do  would  be  equal  to  the 
requireinenis  or  preceptive  part  of  the  law;  and  so  far  as 
his  works  would  fall  short  of  this  the  law  would  be  made 
void.  Further  ;  after  the  law  has  been  transgressed,  the 
chain  of  obedience  is  broken,  and  no  preceding  or  sub- 
sequent act  of  the  transgressor  can  mend  it.  Nothing 
will  then  satisfy  the  law  but  an  infliction  of  its  penalty. 
But  if  the  sinner  is  justified,  he  is  released  from  the 
penalty  of  the  law.  This,  then,  is  the  effect  which  justi- 
fication by  works  would  have  on  the  law.  It  would  make 
void  its  preceptive  part  by  accepting  less,  in  the  way  of 
obedience  or  works,  at  the  hand  of  the  sinner,  than  the 
law  requires.  And  it  would  make  it  void  by  snatching 
from  its  penal  claims  one  who,  by  transgression,  had 
justly  incurred  them.  But  now  justification  Z>y  faith 
establishes  the  law  because  it  allows  the  justification  of 
the  sinner  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  By 
faith  in  him,  his  righteousness  becomes  our  own.  (Com- 
pare Jereniiuh  xxiii:  6;  Romans  x:  4;  Philippians  iii;  9.) 


260  AN   EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's   REVIEW    OP 

And  because  while  it  releases  the  sinner  from  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  it  recognizes  the  death  of  Christ  as  the 
vicarious  satisfaction.  (See  Galatians  iii :  13,  14.)  The 
sinner,  then,  is  not  required  to  loorh  in  order  to  justifi- 
cation, but  to  believe. 

The  third  passage  to  which  I  would  direct  the  read- 
er's attention  is  Romans  iv  :  1-16:  "What  shall  we 
then  say  that  Abraham,  our  father  as  pertaining  to  the 
flesh,  hath  found?  For  if  x\braham  were  justified  by 
works,  he  hath  whereof  to  glory,  but  not  before  God. 
For  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed  God, 
and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  Now 
to  him  that  worJceth,  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of 
grace,  but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but 
believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousness.  Even  as  David  also  describ- 
eth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God  imputeth 
righteousness  without  works,  saying:  Blessed  are  they 
whose  iniquities  ai'c  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered. 
Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin. 
Cometh  this  blessedness  then  upon  the  circumcision  only, 
or  upon  the  uncircumcision  also?  For  we  say  that  faith 
was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteousness.  How  was 
it  then  reckoned?  when  he  was  in  circumcision,  or  in 
uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircum- 
cision. And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being 
uncircumcised ;  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised,  that  right- 
eousness might  be  imputed  unto  them  also;  and  the 
father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of  the  cir- 
cumcision only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that 
faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  he  had  being  yet 
uncircumcised.     For  the  promise  that  he  should  be  the 


Jeter's  campuellism  exposed.  261 

heir  of  the  world  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed, 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith. 
For  if  they  which  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is  made 
void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect.  Because  the 
law  worketh  wrath  :  for  where  no  law  is,  there  is-  no 
transgression.  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be 
hy  grace ;  to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the 
seed  :  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that 
also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father 
of  us  all." 

This  long  quotation  is  a  continuation  of  the  foregoing, 
and  like  it,  strictly  accords  with  my  position,  while  it 
can  not  be  reconciled  with  Mr.  Lard's.  To  reconcile  it 
with  Mr.  Lard's,  one  must  insert  baptism  after  faith  in 
evert/  instance  of  its  occurrence.  But  to  do  this  would 
spoil  the  apostle's  argument.  The  truth  of  this  remark 
can  be  tested  by  running  the  eye  over  the  entire  passage, 
beginning  at  Romans  iii:  21,  and  continuing  to  Romans 
iv:  16. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  quotation  Paul  meets  a 
third  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith, 
to  wit:  "What  shall  we  then  say  that  Abraham,  our 
father  as  pertaining  to  the  flesh,  hath  found  ?"  He  was 
in  the  estimation  of  the  Jews  a  most  exalted  character, 
and  they  supposed  that  by  virtue  of  his  works  he  had 
obtained  justification,  but  they  saw  that  Paul's  teaching 
contradicted  this.  Paul  admits  it,  and  then  refutes  their 
notion  by  two  arguments. 

1.  "If  Abraham  were  justified  by  works  he  hath  where- 
of to  glory,  but  not  before  God."  But  this  would  be 
contrary  to  God's  plan.  It  excludes  boasting  or  glorying, 
and  therefore  excludes  works.  (See  the  Greek.)  In 
God's  presence  every  mouth  is  stopped  and  all  the  world 
is  guilty  before  him. — Rom.  iii:   19.      And  it  is  written: 


262  AN   EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's  REVIEW   OF 

"  He  that  glorietli  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord." — 1  Cor.  i  : 
31.  (Compare  Jeremiah  ix :  23,  24;  and  2  Corinthians 
x:17.) 

2.  It  would  be  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  David,  for 
he  describes  the  blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  tlie 
Lord  imputes  righteousness  icitliout  loorks  when  he  says  : 
"Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is  forgiven,  whose 
sin  is  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the 
Lord  iraputeth  not  iniquity." — Psalm  xxxii :  1,  2.  All 
this  shows  that /(nV/i,  without  any  act  of  Abraham  being 
associated  with  it  as  a  cause,  was  reckoned  or  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness. 

Let  it  be  noted  particularly  here,  that  Paul  uses  the 
terra  righteousness,  which  he  says  is  imputed  to  the  be- 
liever, m  such  a  sense  as  to  include  forgiveness  of  sins.  This 
is  proved  by  his  quotation  from  David  :  Psalm  xxxii : 
1,2:  "  David  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  to 
whom  the  Lord  imputeth  righteousness  loithout  icorks,  say- 
ing, '  Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is  forgiven,'  "  etc. 
Now,  as  David  describes  here  the  blessedness  of  Abraham 
as  well  as  of  every  other  believer,  Abraham's  iniquities 
were  forgiven  on  account  of  his  faith,  and  not  on  account 
of  ani/  work  he  had  done. 

3.  Paul  now  goes  on  to  mention  one  act  of  Abraham, 
namely,  his  circumcision,  and  shows  that  it  could  have 
had  'no  place  among  the  causes  of  his  justification,  be- 
cause his  faith  was  reckoned  to  him  for  righteousness 
while  he  was  in  uncircumcision.  He  mentions  circum- 
cision, because,  upon  it  the  Jews  were  wont  to  lay  the 
greatest  stress.  But  Mr.  Lard,  or  some  other  Campbellite, 
may  object  and  say  :  "  The  apostle  James  tells  us,  '  Abra- 
ham was  justified  by  works  when  he  offered  up  Isaac 
upon  the  altar.'" — James  ii:  21.  I  would  reply,  the  justi- 
fication of  which  James  speaks  took  Tp\acG  fnrti/-one  7/ears 


Jeter's  ca.mpbellisji  exposed.  2G3 

after  that  of  which  Paul  speaks  ;  they  are  therefore  not 
identical.  Paul  speaks  of  Abraham's  justification  as  an 
acqxbittal  from  guilty  as  therefore  the  justification  of  a 
sinner.  James  speaks  of  Abraham's  justification  as  a 
sincere  '■^friend  of  God.'"  His  justification,  then,  is  an 
acquittal  from  the  charge  of  hypocris^y  and  insincerity.  He 
showed  his  faith  by  his  works.  For  forty-one  years  had 
he  been  a  believer  and  a  friend  of  God.  For  forty-one 
years  had  he  enjoyed  the  blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom 
the  Lord  imputeth  righteousness  without  works,  but  he 
had  given  no  particular  demonstration  of  the  fact.  But 
now  God  tries  him — he  puts  his  fidelity  to  the  test.  His 
son  of  promise,  of  prayer,  and  of  hope,  is  demanded  as  a 
burnt-oiFering  :  but  he  falters  not.  He  comes  forth  from 
the  trial  as  gold  ;  and  God  justifies  him  in  his  profession: 
"  Now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast 
not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only  son  from  me." — Gen. 
xxii :  12.  From  the  foregoing  any  one  can  see  that  the 
teaching  of  James  does  not  at  all  conflict  with  the  teach- 
ing of  Paul.  They  are  speaking  of  two  distinct  events 
in  the  life  of  Abraham,  and  of  two  distinct  kinds  of  justi- 
fication. Paul's  is  the  justification  of  a  believing  peni- 
tent si.nner.  James's  is  the  justification  of  a  faithful 
friend  and  servant  of  God. 

Paul  next  goes  on  to  show  that,  as  Abraham  was  justi- 
fied by  faith  without  works,  in  the  same  way  are  all 
believers  justified.  "  Now  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake 
alone,  that  it  [faith]  was  imputed  to  him  ;  but  for  us  also, 
to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  toe  believe  on  him  who 
raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead." — Rom.  iv:  23, 
24.  And,  therefore,  just  as  none  of  Abraham's  works 
were  associated  with  his  faith  as  a  cause  of  his  justifica- 
tion, so  none  of  our  works  are  to  be  associated  with  ours 
as  a  cause  of  our  justification.     Paul  finally  gives  us  the 


264  AN    EXAMINATION    OP   LARD's   REVIEW    OP 

reason  why  justification  is  of  faith :  "Therefore  it  is  of 
faith  that  it  mvjht  he  by  gracp,  to  the  end  that  the.  prom- 
ise might  he  sure  to  all  the  seedy — V.  16. 

Now,  it  is  plain  frona  this  remark  of  the  apostle's, 
1st.  That  if  works  were  associated  with  faith  as  a  cause 
of  jvstijicalion  it  would  not  be  by  grace ;  for  grace  and 
works  can  never  coalesce  :  "  And  if  by  grace,  then  it  is  no 
more  of  works:  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace." — Rom. 
xi :  6.  2d.  The  promise  of  justification  would  not  he  sure 
to  all  the  seed.  If  any  work  were  enjoined  as  a  condi- 
tion of  justification^  there  would  be  some  believers  out  of 
whose  power  that  work  would  be,  and  to  these  the  prom- 
ise would  not  be  sure.  For  example  :  if  baptism,  as  Mr. 
Lard  contends,  were  made  a  condition  of  justification, 
would  there  not  be  found  many  believers  who  could  not 
be  baptized  ?  Then,  of  course,  to  these  the  promise  would 
not  be  sure. 

4.  The  next  passage  to  which  I  invite  attention  is  this: 
"  We  who  are  Jews  by  nature,  and  not  sinners  of  the 
Gentiles,  knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works 
of  the  law,  but  hy  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have 
htUi'ved  in  Jesus  Christy  that  we  miijht  be  justified  hy  the 
faith  of  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law:  for  by 
the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified." — Gal. 
ii:  15,  16. 

This  passage,  like  all  the  preceding,  perfectly  harmo- 
nizes with  my  position,  while  it  is  incongruous  with  Mr. 
Lard's. 

Note,  these  words  are  uttered  by  the  apostle  in  justifi- 
cation of  his  withstanding  Peter  to  his  face  on  account 
of  his  dissimulation  in  withdrawing  from  the  Gentiles 
after  having  eaten  with  them.  He,  and  Peter,  and  the 
other  Jewish  Christians,  knew  what  was  and  what  was 
not  necessary  to  justification.     None  of  their  Jewish  ob- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  265 

servances  was  necessary.  But  faith  in  Christ  was  nec- 
essary. Consequently  they  had  believed  in  Christ,  that 
they  might  be  justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ. 

Note,  again,  that  Paul  is  not  only  showing  why  he 
withstood  Peter,  but  also  what  is  essential  to  justifica- 
tion with  respect  to  both  Jew  and  Gentile.  And  does 
he  not  mention  all  that  is  essential?  According  to  my 
position,  he  does  ;  but  according  to  Mr.  Lard's  he  does 
not.  If  Mr.  Lard's  position  be  correct,  Paul  ought  to 
have  said:  "We,  who  are  Jews  by  nature,  and  not  sin- 
ners of  the  Gentiles,  knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified 
by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  [and  baptism] 
of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have  believed  [and  been  bap- 
tized] in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  the 
faith  [and  baptism]  of  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of 
the  law !" 

Reader,  does  not  the  introduction  of  Campbellism  spoil 
and  pervert  the  text? 

5.  The  fifth  passage  to  which  I  call  attention,  is  in 
Ephesians  ii:  8-10  :  "  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through 
faith  ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves :  it  is  the  gift  of  God : 
not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  we  are 
his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good 
works,  which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should 
walk  in  them." 

I  claim  that  this  passage  also,  without  note  or  com- 
ment, sustains  my  position.  But  it  must  be  materially 
changed  to  sustain  Mr.  Lard's — thus  :  "  For  by  grace  are 
ye  saved  through  faith,"  [and  baptism,]  etc.  Mr.  Lard's 
position  is  incompatible  with  this  text.  1st.  It  is  incom- 
patible with  the  phrase,  "and  that  not  of  yourselves." 
This  phrase  must  allude  to  all  that  goes  before,  "for 
by  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith."  The  grace,  the 
salvation,  the  faith — all  the  affair  of  salvation — are  not 
12 


266  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW    OF 

of  ourselves.  But  this  can  not  be  said  of  baptism. 
2d.  It  is  incompatible  with  the  phrase,  "  it  is  the  gift  of 
God."  While  the  former  phrase  tells  us  the  whole  affair 
of  salvation  is  not  of  ourselves,  the  latter  tells  us  it  is 
the  gift  of  God.  But  baptism  can  not,  with  any  propri- 
ety, be  thus  spoken  of.  3d.  It  is  incompatible  with  the 
phrase,  "  not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast."  Bap- 
tism must  be  included  in  the  term  "works."  It  can  not 
be  included  in  the  term  "  grace;"  it  can  not  be  included 
in  the  term  "  saved  ;"  it  can  not  be  included  in  the  term 
"  faith  ;"  it  can  not  be  included  in  that  which  is  not  of 
ourselves;  it  can  not  be  included  in  that  which  is  the 
"gift  of  God."  4th.  The  final  verse,  "For  we  are  his 
workmanship,"  etc.,  shows  that  a  performance  of  duty, 
or  walking  in  good  works,  which  is  expressive,  certainly, 
of  obedience  to  all  the  commands  of  God,  is  an  effect  of 
this  salvation  by  grace  through  faith.  Then  it  can  not 
be  a  cause.  Now,  as  baptism  is  included  in  this  effect.^  it 
can  not  be  taken  out  of  it  and  made  a  cause.  But  Mr. 
Lard's  position  makes  baptism  a  cause  and  not  an  effect 
of  salvation  ;  therefore  it  is  false.  If  Mr.  Lard's  position 
is  true,  the  sinner  yet  unsaved,  yet  unborn,  (for  according 
to  Mr.  Lard  he  is  only  begotten,  before  baptism,)  yet  in 
his  sins,  yet  condemned,  is  to  perform  an  act  of  obedi- 
ence which  shall  eventuate  in  his  salvation  ! 

6.  My  sixth  passage  is  in  Acts  x  :  43 :  "  To  him  give 
all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name,  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 

This  passage  is,  of  itself,  sufficient  to  sustain  my  posi- 
tion and  to  refute  Mr.  Lard's. 

It  is  not  only  affirmed  here  by  Peter,  that  wliosoever 
hplieves  hi  Jesus  Christ  shall  receive  remission  of  sins,  but 
it  is  the  united  testimony  of  all  the  ^jrophets.  Now  sup- 
pose the  affirmation  of  Peter  had  been,  that  faith  in  Jesus 


JETEn"s    f'AMPRF.MJSM    EXPOSED.  267 

Christ,  without  baptism,  was  insufBcient  to  obtain  remis- 
sion of  sins,  oould  he  have  chiimed  all  the  prophets  aa 
witnesses?  No.  Never  since  the  world  began  has  a 
single  prophet  testified  that  baptism  is  as  necessary  as 
faith  to  remission.  It  remained  for  Campbellism  to  make 
this  assertion.  We  shall  notice  the  testimony  of  the 
prophets  on  this  point  by  and  by. 

7.  The  seventh  passage  I  would  have  the  reader  con- 
sider, is  in  John  iii :  14,  15  :  "  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the 
serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man 
be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  Now,  just  as  my  position 
affirms,  so  the  Savior  here  affirms — that  every  believer  in 
Jesus  shall  have  eternal  life.  Faith  in  Jesus  is  the  only 
condition  recognized.  Mr.  Lard's  position  affirms  to  the 
contrary.  It  will  thrust  in  baptism  as  a  condition.  But 
this  the  passage  will  not  allow.  The  analogy  here  insti- 
tuted prohibits  it.  The  analogy  is  as  follows :  1st.  As 
the  Jew  was  affected  by  the  poison  of  the  fiery  serpent 
which  had  bitten  him,  so  is  the  sinner  affected  by  sin. 
2d.  As  the  serpent  raised  in  the  midst  of  the  Jewish  camp 
by  Moses  was  an  effectual  remedy  for  the  Jew,  so  is 
Jesus  Christ  lifted  up  an  effectual  remedy  for  the  sin- 
ner. 3d.  And  as  the  Jew  was  cured  by  looking  at  this 
serpent,  so  is  the  sinner  cured  by  believing  in  Jesus. 
And  now,  as  no  overt  act  intervened  between  the  looking 
of  the  Jew  and  his  healing,  so  no  overt  act  intervenes 
between  the  faith  of  the  sinner  and  his  salvation.  Reader, 
do  you  not  now  see  that  to  thrust  in  baptism  between  the 
sinner's  faith  and  salvation,  is  to  spoil  this  analogy? 

Here,  now,  are  seven  passages  of  Scripture,  which  are 
not  only  confirmatory  of  my  position,  but  incompatible 
with  Mr.  Lard's.  No  ingenuity  can  reconcile  them.  I 
will,  therefore,  leave  it  with  the  reader  to  say  which  they 


268         AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

prove  to  be  the  true  position,  and  pass  to  my  second 
argument. 

§  5. — ARGUMENT   SECOND. 

M^y  position  ajffirms  precisely  what  so  many  passages  of 
Scripture  affinn,  as  to  show  that  it  agrees  with  the  general 
tenor  of  Scripture^  but  Mr.  Lard's  can  not  be  reconciled 
with  these  passages  loithoui  adding  to  them;  there/ore,  my 
position  is  true  and  his  is  false. 

Now,  reader,  go  with  me,  and  we  will  range  the  entire 
New  Testament,  and  see  whether  this  argument  is  true. 
I  will  number  the  passages  so  that,  at  the  end,  we  can 
know  at  a  glance  how  many  passages  have  been  cited. 

1.  John  iii  :  16  :  "  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that 
he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  belicveth  in 
him,  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  Now, 
this  passage  affirms  precisely  what  my  position  affirms, 
but  to  make  it  agree  with  Mr.  Lard's  you  must  add  to  it; 
you  must  thrust  in  "  baptism  "  after  "  believeth."  Unless 
you  do  this,  according  to  Mr.  Lard's  position,  it  affirms 
falsely. 

2.  John  iii :  18 :  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  is 
not  condemned."  This  is  precisely  what  my  position 
affirms.  But  Mr.  Lard's  affirms  that  the  believer  contin- 
ues in  a  state  of  condemnation  until  baptized  !  So,  you 
see,  to  reconcile  this  passage  to  Mr.  Lard's  position,  you 
must  add  to  it.  You  must  thrust  in  "  baptism"  between 
"believeth"  and  "not  condemned." 

3.  John  iii :  36 :  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son 
hath  everlasting  life."  So  affirms  my  position.  But 
Mr.  Lard's  does  not  so  affirm.  It  contradicts  the  text 
until  you  thrust  in  baptism  after  believeth. 

4.  John  v:  2-1:  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  on  him  that  sent 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  2-69 

nie,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  con- 
demnation ;  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life."  My 
position  responds  "A7npn."  "Not  so,"  says  Mr.  Lard's; 
"  there  is  no  such  thing  as  freedom  from  condemnation, 
and  the  possession  of  eternal  life  to  the  believer,  unless 
he  is  baptized."  Thus,  reader,  you  see  we  must  add  to 
the  text  by  inserting  "baptism"  after  "bid/eveth,"  or  Mr. 
Lard's  position  will  be  f  irever  at  war  with  the  text. 

5.  John  vi :  40:  "And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that 
sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth 
on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life  :  and  I  will  raise  him 
up  at  the  last  day."  "  Amen,"  again  responds  my  posi- 
tion, but  Mr.  Lard's  frowningly  says  :  "  That  text  is  not 
true  unless  baptism  be  added.  The  Father's  will  is  that 
the  believer  be  baptized,  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  he 
shall  have  everlasting  life,  and  claim  the  promise  of  being 
raised  up  at  the  last  day." 

C.  John  vi  :  47  :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you. 
He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life."  "Amen," 
my  position  responds  with  trebbled  emphasis,  but  a 
darker  frown  gathers  on  the  face  of  Mr.  Lard's,  and  it 
mutters  out:  "  The  believer  has  no  such  thing  unless  he 
has  been  baptized.'^  Reader,  shall  we  accommodate  Mr. 
Lard's  position  by  adding  to  the  text?  I  can  not  do  it, 
for  these  are  the  words  of  the  Master,  and  the  wise  man 
says  :  "Add  thou  not  unto  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee, 
and  thou  be  found  a  liar." — Prov.  xxx  :  6.  Compare  Deu- 
teronomy iv  :  2  ;  xii :  32,  and  Revelation  xxii :  18. 

7.  John  XX :  31:  "But  these  are  written,  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ; 
and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name." 
My  position  is  satisfied  with  this  text  just  as  it  is,  but 
methinks  Mr.  Lard's  has  grown  angry,  and  I  hear  it  say  : 
"  You  are  quoting  texts  that  were  spoken  before  baptism 


270  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW    OP 

was  instituted.  Give  mc  a  text,  spoken  or  written,  after 
the  Pentecost."  Very  well.  I  will  then  go  beyond 
Pentecost.  But  I  must  enter  here  my  denial  that  the 
passages  quoted  were  spoken  hefore  baptism  was  insti- 
tuted, but  I  shall  not  now  argue  the  point,  as  it  will  come 
up  again  after  a  while. 

Let  us  now  go  to  the  other  side  of  Pentecost. 

8.  Acts  xiii :  38,  39:  "Be  it  known  unto  you  there- 
fore, men  and  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preached 
unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  and  by  him  all  that 
believe  are  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could 
not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses."  Well,  my  position 
is  confirmed  by  this  test.  It  affirms  the  same  thing. 
But  Mr.  Lard's  frowns  again,  and  will  not  have  the  text 
just  as  it  is.  To  make  it  suit,  you  must  make  it  read  : 
"  By  him  all  that  believe,  and  arc  baptized^  are  justified 
from  all  things,"  etc. 

9.  Acts  xiii:  48:  "And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to 
eternal  life,  believed."  "Amen,"  says  my  position.  But 
Mr.  Lard's  says  :  "I  don't  believe  a  word  of  it,  unless 
you  will  let  me  add,  and  icere  bnptizedy 

10.  Romans  v:  1,  2:  "Therefore  being  justified  by 
faith.,  we  have  peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ:  by  whom  also  we  have  access  by  faith  into  this 
grace  wherein  we  stand,  and  rejoice  in  the  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God."  "Amen,"  again  responds  my  position. 
But  what  says  Mr.  Lard?  "We  are  justified  by  faith 
and  baptism,  and  we  can  have  no  access  into  this  grace 
until  we  are  baptized!" 

11.  1  Corinthians  i:  21  :  "It  hath  pleased  God  by  the 
foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe."  My 
position  asserts  the  same;  but  what  says  Mr.  Lard's? 
"It  hath  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching 
to  save  them  that  believe  and  arc  baptized." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  271 

12.  Galatians  iii :  8:  "And  the  Scripture,  foresee- 
ing that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith^ 
preached  before  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In 
thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed."  "I  agree  with  that," 
says  my  position;  but  what  says  Mr.  Lard's?  "The 
Scripture  foresaw  no  such  thing.  God  will  justify  the 
heathen  through  faith  and  baptism." 

13.  Galatians  iii:  9:  "So  then  they  which  be  oi' faith 
are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham."  My  position  agrees 
with  that;  but  what  says  Mr.  Lard's?  It  mutters  out: 
"They  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,  provided  they 
are  baptized .'" 

14.  Galatians  iii :  26  :  "  For  ye  are  all  the  children 
of  God  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  "  Good,"  says  my 
position  ;  but  Mr.  Lard's  mutters  out:  "We  are  all  the 
children  of  God  by  faith  and  baptism." 

15.  Philippians  iii :  9  :  "  And  be  found  in  him,  not 
having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but 
that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  God  by  faith."  "  That  is  the  kind  of 
righteousness  which  every  believing  sinner  has,"  says  my 
position;  but  Mr.  Lard's  responds:  "There  is  no  such 
righteousness.  The  righteousness  of  God  is  by  faith  and 
baptisin." 

16.  Romans  x :  4 :  "  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth."  "  That  is 
just  what  I  affirm,"  says  my  position  ;  but  Mr.  Lard's 
responds  :  "  I  affirm  no  such  thing.  I  affirm  that  Christ 
is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  who 
believes  and  is  baptized." 

17.  Romans  x:  8,  9 :  "The  word  of  faith,  which  we 
preach  :  That  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath 
raised  him   from   the  dead,   thou  shalt  be  saved."     "  I 


272  AN    EXAMINATION    OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

agree  with  that,"  says  my  position  ;  but  Mr.  Lard's  re- 
sponds :  "I  say,  a  sinner  may  confess  with  his  mouth  as 
loudly  as  he  pleases,  and  believe  with  his  heart  until 
doomsday,  but  unless  he  is  baptized  he  has  no  promise 
of  salvation." 

18.  Romans  x:  11  :  "  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Whoso- 
ever believeth  on  him  shall  not  be  ashamed."  "  I  say 
so,  too,"  says  my  position  ;  but  Mr.  Lard's  responds  : 
"I  don't  care  what  the  Scripture  says.  I  say,  he  will  be 
ashamed  unless  he  is  baptized." 

Here,  reader,  T  have  given  you  eighteen  passages  which 
accord  strictly  with  my  position,  but  do  not  with  Mr. 
Lard's.  Do  they  not,  then,  sustain  my  second  argu- 
ment? I  feel  quite  sure  they  do,  and  shall,  therefore, 
without  further  remark,  pass  to  my  third  argument, 

§  6. — ARGUMENT    THIRD. 

During  our  Savior's  personal  ministry  sins  were  remitted 
witliout  baptism,  though  baptism  v:as  then  being  adminis- 
tered to  all  such  as  became  his  disciples;  therefore,  the  Savior 
himself  has  shown  that  remission  of  sins  is  not  susjjcndcd 
on  baptism. 

All  that  is  necessary  for  me  to  do  is  to  demonstrate 
the  several  statements  here  made. 

1.  During  our  Savioi'^s  personal  ministri/  sins  loere  re- 
mitted without  baptism.  In  support  of  this  statement  I 
oflfer  the  following  proofs: 

1st.  Mark  ii :  5  :  "  When  Jesus  saw  their  faith,  he  said 
unto  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  S)n,  thg  sins  be  forgiven  thee." 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus  forgave  this  palsied 
man's  sins.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  forgave 
them  without  baptism.  He  did  not,  however,  forgive 
them  without  faith.  This  passage,  then,  yields  all  its 
support  in  favpr  of  my  position. 


Jeter's  caiupbellism  exposed.  273 

2d.  Luke  vii  :  47,  48,  50  :  "  Wherefore,  I  say  unto 
thee,  Her  sins,  which  are  many,  are  forgiven;  for  she 
loved  much.  And  he  said  unto  her.  Thy  sins  are  fur- 
given.  And  he  said  to  the  woman,  Thy  faith  hath  saved 
thee  ;  go  in  peace."  A  clearer  testimony  in  favor  of  my 
position,  and  against  Mr.  Lard's,  than  this  passage  aflfords, 
could  not  be  given.  This  woman's  sins  are  forgiven — ■ 
not  without  faith,  but  without  baptism.  This  woman 
believed,  and  was  pardoned,  but  not  baptized. 

3d.  Luke  xviii :  14:  "  I  tell  you  this  man  went  down 
to  his  house  justified  rather  than  the  other."  The  phrase, 
"rather  than  the  other,"  means  that  this  man  was  justi- 
fied while  the  other  was  not.  Justification  includes  par- 
don. This  man  was,  therefore,  pardoned.  He  was  par- 
doned not  without  faith,  but  without  baptism.  That  he 
had  faith  we  know  from  his  prayer.  He  called  upon  Gud. 
But  "  how  can  we  call  upon  him  in  whom  we  have  not 
believed?"  And  his  faith  was  a  penitential  faith.  But 
he  was  not  baptized. 

Here,  now,  I  have  furnished  the  reader  with  three  in- 
disputable examples  of  pardon  without  baptism.  Well, 
"  out  of  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  shall  every 
word  be  established."     I  pass  to  the  second  statement: 

2.  "  Bttptism  teas  then  being  administered  to  all  such  as 
hecame  the  Savior^ s  disciples." 

In  proof  of  this  I  refer  first  to  John  iii :  22  :  '-After 
these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land 
of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them  and  baptized." 
After  these  things?  After  what  things?  Evidently 
after  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  as  recorded  in  the 
preceding  part  of  the  chapter.  Then,  be  it  remenibeiod 
after  he  had  uttered  the  remarkable  words  :  "  Except  a 
man  be  horn  of  icater  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter 
the  kingdom  o^  God;"  which  words,  Mr.  Lard  tells  us, 
12* 


274  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's    REVIEW   OF 

makes  baptism  a  part  of  the  new  birth  !  and  a  condition 
of  pardon  !  !  Bat  note,  not  after  the  examples  of  pardon 
■without  baptism,  which  I  have  already  presented  from 
Mark  and  Luke. 

A  second  proof  I  deduce  from  John  iv  :  1,  2  :  "  When, 
therefore,  the  Lord  knew  that  the  Pharisees  had  heard 
that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John, 
(though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,) 
he  left  Judea,"  etc.  These  two  passages  show  that  in 
the  beginning  of  our  Savior's  personal  ministry,  by  liis 
authority  disciples  were  made  and  baptized.  'Jhey  show 
us  how  Jesus  hegan  his  ministry.  And  now,  while  we 
have  proof,  that  in  the  commencement  of  our  Savior's 
ministry,  he  made  and  baptized  disciples,  and  have  no 
proof  that  baptism  was  ever  discontinued,  we  are  bound 
to  conclude  that  baptism  was  being  administered  (hiring 
his  personal  ministry.  There  can  be  no  reason  given  for 
the  administration  of  the  rite,  in  the  commencement,  that 
■would  not  be  a  reason  for  its  continuance  to  the  end.  It 
is  a  just  inference  that  as  the  Savior  hegan  so  would  he 
Jini>>h  his  ministry.  He  began  by  baptizing  disciples, 
and,  therefore,  so  he  finished. 

T  can  imagine  but  two  objections  that  any  one  can 
possibly  urge  against  this  conclusion  : 

1.  It  may  be  objected  that  as  these  two  passages  are 
the  only  ones  which  speak  of  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism during  our  Savior's  ministry — as  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  ever  after  silent — the  presumption  is,  Jesus  never 
again  baptized.  I  answer,  silence  proves  nothing.  A 
witness  never  yet  proved  anything  by  saying  nothing. 
Especially  is  subsequent  silence  no  proof  against  what 
has  been  already  established.  The  witness  in  this  case 
has  spoken  once,  yea,  twice,  in  proof  of  the  above  state- 
ment, and  until  he  speaks  again  he  is  on  my  side. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  275 

If  subsequent  silence  is  proof  of  a  discontinuance  of  the 
rite  of  baptism,  then  was  baptism  discontinued  at  Jeru- 
salem after  the  day  of  Pentecost:  for  no  sacred  historian 
mentions  that  baptism  was  ever  administered  there  after 
that  day.  And  so  of  Samaria  and  Cesarea.  The  Samari- 
tans converted  by  Philip  were  baptized,  (Acts  viii :  12,) 
but  whether  any  others  were  ever  baptized  there,  the 
sacred  historian  saith  not.  Cornelius,  and  his  friends 
and  neighbors,  who  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
while  Peter  was  preaching  to  them,  were  commanded  to 
be  baptized;  but  whether  any  others  were  afterward,  the 
historian  saith  not.     And  so  of  many  other  places. 

2.  It  may  be  objected  that  if  Jesus  authorized  his  dis- 
ciples to  baptize  during  his  personal  ministry,  there  was 
no  need  of  the  commission  as  recorded  by  Matthew  and 
Mark.  I  answer  there  was  need  of  this  commission,  be- 
cause without  it  neither  the  Gospel  nor  its  ordinances 
would  ever  have  been  extended  to  the  Gentiles.  Our 
Savior's  first  commission  to  his  apostles  restricted  them 
to  ^"^  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel." — See  Matt,  x: 
5,  6.  Neither  to  the  Samaritans  or  to  the  Gentiles  were 
they  to  preach.  And  now,  as  the  Savior  had  placed 
around  them  this  restriction,  it  was  needful  that  he 
should  remove  it.  This  he  has  done  in  the  commission. 
After  his  ascension  they  were  to  "  teach  all  nations," 
"  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,"  and  baptize  such 
of  them  as  believed.  The  giving  of  this  commission, 
then,  affords  no  objection  to  the  view  I  have  given  : 
During  our  Savior's  personal  ministry  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered. 

3.  From  these  two  considerations,  then,  I  draw  the 
conclusion  that  the  Savior  himself  has  shoton  that  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  not  suspended  on  baptism. 

It  can  not  be  presumed  that  our  blessed  Lord  woul(3 


276  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's   REVIEW   OF 

enact  a  law  of  pardon  and  then  violate  it  himself.  It 
can  not  be  presumed  that  he  would  tell  Nicodemus  that 
a  man  must  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit — meaning 
by  born  of  water,  that  he  must  be  baptized — or  he  could 
not  enter  the  kingdom  or  could  not  be  pardoned  :  and 
then  again  and  again  pardon  sins  without  baptism.  This 
would  be  to  contemn  his  own  law.  And  how  could  he 
expect  the  apostles  to  abide  by  the  law,  when  he  him- 
self was,  in  their  presence,  so  frequently  violating  it? 

I  now  consider  my  third  argument  sustained.  Its  sev- 
eral parts  have  been  demonstrated.  And  it  is  of  itself 
sufficient  to  sustain  my  position.  I  pass  to  my  fourth 
argument. 

§  7. — ARGUMENT   FOURTH. 

My  position  is  in  strict  accordance  ivith  the  special  com- 
mission given  to  the  apostle  Paul  hy  the  Savior^  ivhile  Mr. 
Lard's  is  discordant  icith  it;  there/ore,  my  position  is  true 
and  Mr.  Lard's  false. 

This  special  commission  is  recorded  in  Acts  xxvi :  16— 
18:  "But  rise,  and  stand  upon  thy  feet:  for  I  have 
appeared  unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make  thee  a  min- 
ister and  a  witness  both  of  these  things  which  thou  hast 
seen,  and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto 
thee;  delivering  thee  from  the  people,  and  from  the 
Gentiles,  unto  whom  now  I  send  thee,  to  open  their  eyes, 
and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the 
power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness 
of  sins  and  inheritance  among  them  which  are  sanctified 
hy  faith  that  is  in  me." 

1.  We  notice  here,  1st.  The  instrumentality  Paul  was 
to  employ  ;  2d.  The  benefits  the  Gentiles  were  to  receive  ; 
3d.  The  medium  through  which  they  were  to  receive 
them.     The  instrumentality  was  evidently  the  preaching 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  277 

of  the  Gospel,  comprehended  in  his  being  a  minister  and 
a  witness  of  the  things  he  had  seen  and  would  yet  see. 
Hence  the  apostle  has  in  all  his  epistles  laid  great  stress 
on  this.  "  It  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preach- 
ing to  save  them  that  believe." — 1  Cor.  i:  21.  '-We 
preach  Christ  crucified  ;  *  *  *  unto  them  which 
are  called  *  *  =i^  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom 
of  God." — V.  23,  24.  "  For  the  preaching  of  the  cross 
is  J  ^  *  *  unto  us  which  are  saved,  it  is  the  power 
of  God." — V.  18.  "  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ :  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every- 
one that  believeth." — Rom.  i :  16. 

The  benefits  to  be  conferred  are  :  1st.  Spiritual  enlight- 
enment— open  their  eyes  ;  2d.  Conversion — turn  them 
from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto 
God;  3d.  Forgiveness  of  sins  and  an  inheritance  among 
the  saved.  But  now  note  especially  that  the  medium 
through  which  all  this  was  to  come,  is  faith — ■'  By  faith 
that  is  in  me."  And  now  we  can  see  the  adaptation  of 
the  means  to  the  medium  :  "  For  whosoever  shall  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved.  How  then 
shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  he/ieved? 
and  how  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not 
heard?  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?" — 
Bora.  X  :  13,  14.  As  these  benefits  were  to  be  received 
by  faith,  the  instrumentalities  necessary  to  faith  had  to 
be  employed.  Hence  Christ  sent  Paul  to  preach.  (1  Cor. 
i  :  17.)  Now,  all  this  accords  strictly  with  my  position. 
But  does  it  accord  with  Mr.  Lard's  ?  It  does  not.  It 
lacks  one  indispensable  item  —  baptism.  Mr.  Lard's 
position  would  admit  that  the  Gentiles  to  whom  Paul 
was  sent  might  have  their  eyes  opened,  and  might 
be  turned  from  darkness  unto  light  without  baptism  ; 
but  there   they   must  stop.     In   the   kingdom  of  Satan 


278  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW   OF 

and  in  their  sins  they  must  remain  until  they  are  bap- 
tized ! 

Did  Paul  so  understand  the  matter?  Then  tell  me 
how  could  he  thank  God  that  he  had  baptized  so  few 
among  the  Corinthians?  and  how  could  he  say  that 
Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize?  (1  Cor.  i:  17.)  Paul 
never  entertained  any  such  views  as  those  embraced  in 
Mr.  Lard's  position. 

§  8. — ARGUMENT   FIFTH. 

My  position  agrees  with  the  teaching  of  Paul  in  Romans, 
tenth  chapter,  and  first  to  tenth  verses,  inclusive:  but  Mr. 
Lard's  is  incompatible  loith  if ;  therefore  mine  is  true  and 
his  is  false. 

The  passage  of  Scripture  here  referred  to  is  lengthy, 
still  I  will  transcribe  it ;  for  it  is  worthy  of  being  written 
in  letters  of  gold  : 

"Brethren,  my  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for 
Israel  is,  that  they  might  be  saved.  For  I  bear  them 
record  that  they  have  a  zeal  of  God,  but  not  accord- 
ing to  knowledge.  For  they,  being  ignorant  of  God's 
righteousness,  and  going  about  to  establish  their  own 
righteousness,  have  not  submitted  themselves  unto  the 
righteousness  of  God.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
for  lighteousness  to  every  one  that  believefh.  For  Moses 
describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  that 
the  man  which  doeth  those  things  shall  live  by  them. 
But  the  righteousness  vjhich  is  of  faith  speaketh  on  this 
wise,  Say  not  in  thy  heart,  Who  shall  ascend  into 
heaven  ?  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above  :)  or, 
Who  shall  descend  into  the  deep  ?  (that  is,  to  bring  up 
Christ  again  from  the  dead.)  But  what  saith  it?  The 
word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart: 
that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which  wc  preach  :  That  if  thou 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  279 

shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt 
believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For  with  the  heart,  man  be- 
lieveth  unto  righteousness;  and  with  the  mouth,  confes- 
sion is  made  unto  salvation." 

Here  the  apostle  contrasts  the  Jewish  and  the  Chris- 
tian plans  of  salvation,  in  order  to  point  out  the  differ- 
ence between  them,  and  to  show  the  futility  of  the  one 
and  the  efficiency  of  the  other.  The  Jewish  plan  is  one 
of  law.  The  Christian  plan  is  one  o^  faith.  The  Jew 
expects  to  be  saved  by  his  own  righteousness.  The  Chris- 
tian hy  faith  in  J"-  Jhrist.  The  Jewish  plan  says,  Do 
and  be  saved.      j.ne  Christian  says,  Believe  and  be  saved. 

The  apostle  then  gives  a  plain  description  of  the  faith 
which  saves.  It  is  not  a  simple  belief  in  a  Messiah  who 
has  not  yet  come  into  the  world.  No,  it  recognizes  the 
Lord  Jesus  as  having  already  come,  and  died  and  risen 
again.  Hence  John  says:  "Every  spirit  that  confesses 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  God:  and 
every  spirit  that  confesses  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God." — 1  John  iv :  2,  3.  And 
Paul  tells  us,  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen  our  faith  is  vain.'' 
— 1  Cor.  XV :  14.  Therefore  we  are  to  "  confess  with  our 
mouths  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  believe  in  our  hearts  that 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  And,  finally,  the 
word  of  faith  which  be  preached,  affirmed  of  all  who  did 
thus  confess  and  believe,  that  they  should  be  saved. 
Now,  this  is  true,  every  word  of  it  true,  according  to  my 
position.  But  it  is  not  true  according  to  Mr.  Lard's;  for 
one  essential  item  is  still  wanting.  The  word  which  it 
preaches  is  :  '•  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead,  \j:tnd  he  baptized,']  thou  shall  he 
saved."     According  to  it,  without  baptism  all  that  goes 


280  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

before  is  of  no  avail.  Mr.  Lard's  plan  of  salvation  ia 
neither  Jewish  nor  Christian.  It  is  a  mixture  of  both. 
The  Jew  says,  "  Do  and  live."  The  Christian  says,  "  Be- 
lieve and  live."  But  Mr.  Lard  says,  ^^  Believe  and  do  and 
live."  His  plan  begins  in  the  spirit  but  ends  in  the  riesb. 
But  it  may  be  asked,  if  baptism  can  not  be  {wplled  by 
the  apostle  as  being  also  necessary  to  salvation  ?  I  an- 
swer, most  surely  not,  for  this  plain  reason  :  the  apostle 
proves  his  assertion  by  the  prophets  Isaiah  and  Joel. 
The  former  says  :  "  Whosoever  helieveth  on  him  shall  not 
be  ashamed."  And  the  latter  says:  "Whosoever  shall 
call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  But  they 
say  not  one  word  about  baptism.  Now,  had  Paul  intended 
to  teach  what  Mr.  Lard's  position  teaches,  he  could  not 
have  called  on  Isaiah  and  Joel  as  witnesses.  How  in- 
congruous would  it  appear  were  we  to  read  :  "  Though 
you  may  confess  with  your  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
believe  in  your  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  you  can  not  be  saved  unless  you  are  baptized  :  for 
the  Scripture  saith,  Whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall 
not  be  ashamed,"  etc.  I  !  I 


§  9. — ARGUMENT   SIXTH. 

Baptism  is  an  act  of  obedience  to  the  command  of  Jesus 
Christ,  hence  it  can  not  he  accrptahly  performed  by  one 
who  does  not  love  him  :  bid  no  lover  of  Jesns  Christ  is  stilt 
in  his  sins  :  hence,  if  baptism  is  delayed  until  the  sinner 
loves  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  delayed  until  he  is  pardoned ;  but 
if  the  sinner  is  baptized  before  he  loves  Jesus  Christ,  the  act 
itself  is  sinful,  and  can  he  of  no  avail, 

1.  Baptism  is  an  act  of  obedience  to  the  command  :f 
Jesus  Christ.  Tiiis,  I  presume,  no  one  will  dispute.  He 
is  the  author  of  the  command,  and  he  has  issued  it  in  hia 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  281 

own  name.      "  All  power  [or  authorify'\  is  given  unto  me 
in  heaven  and  in  earth  :  go  ye,  therefore,"  etc. 

2.  It  can  not  he  accpptahly  performed  hy  one  loho  does 
not  love  him.  Will  this  be  disputed  ?  I  think  not.  But 
lest  it  should  be,  I  submit  the  following  proofs  :  "  He 
that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy 
of  me  :  and  he  that  loveth  son  or  daughter  more  than 
me,  is  not  worthy  of  me." — Matt,  x:  .37.  (Compare  Luke 
xiv  :  26.)  The  meaning  of  the  Savior  here,  plainly  is, 
that  we  can  not  be  his  disciples  or  do  anything  accepta- 
ble to  him  unless  we  love  him  supremely. 

3.  But  no  lovtr  of  Jesus  Christ  is  still  in  his  sins.  Is 
this  true,  or  is  it  false  ?  If  it  is  true,  the  issue  between 
Mr.  Lard  and  me  is  settled  in  my  favor  forever.  Well, 
let  us  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony: 

1st.  Love  is  evidence  of  conversion,  because  uncon- 
verted men  do  not  love.  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God." — Rom.  viii  :  7.  "I  know  you,"  said  Jesus 
to  the  Jews,  "  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in 
you." — John  v:  42.  Hence,  the  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost. — Eom.  v:  5. 
John  tells  us  love  is  of  God. — 1  John  iv  :  7. 

2d.  Love  is  an  evidence  of  pardon.  See  Luke  vii  : 
41-43:  "There  was  a  certain  creditor,  who  had  two 
debtors  :  the  one  owed  him  five  hundred  pence,  and  the 
other  fifty.  And  when  they  had  nothing  to  pay,  he 
frankly  forgave  them  both.  Tell  me  therefore,  which  of 
them  will  love  him  most?  Simon  answered  and  said, 
I  suppose  that  he  to  whom  he  forgave  most.  And  he 
said  unto  him,  Thou  hast  rightly  judged."  Here  love  is 
shown  to  be  the  effect  of  pardon.  Hence,  Jesus  adds  in 
the  47th  verse:  "  Wherefore,  I  say  unto  thee,  her  sins, 
which  are  many,  are  forgiven  ;  for  she  loved  much." 
Here  love  is  shown  to  be  the  proof  of  pardon. 


282  AN   EXAMINATION   OF    LARd's    REVIEW   OF 

3d.  It  can  not,  I  think,  be  denied  that  all  who  have 
passed  from  death  unto  life  are  pardoned;  therefore  what- 
ever proves  that  one  has  passed  from  death  unto  life, 
proves  that  he  is  pardoned.  Well,  love  proves  that  one 
has  passed  from  death  unto  life.  "  We  know,"  says 
John,  "  that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto  life,  because 
we  love  the  brethren." — 1  John  iii  :   14. 

4.  The  apostle  John  makes  the  entire  question  of  our 
gracious  state  turn  upon  this  one  fact,  that  we  love.  Let 
nie  quote  him  in  full,  giving  what  he  says  about  those 
who  do  not,  as  well  as  about  those  who  do.  I  will  place 
what  he  says  in  juxtaposition,  that  we  may  the  better 
compare  : 

THOSE  WHO  DO  LOVE.  THOSE  WHO  DO  NOT  LOVE. 

"He  that   loveth   his   brother  "lie  that   saith   he  is    in    the 

abideth  in  the  light,  and  there  is  light,  and  hateth  his  brother,  is 

none   occasion   of   stumbling   in  in  darkness  even  until  now." — 1 

him." — 1  John  ii :  10.  John  ii  :  9. 

"  We  know  that  we  have  passed  "  He  that  loveth  not  his  broth- 

from  death  unto  life,  because  we  er,   abideth    in    death." — 1  John 

love  the  brethren." — 1  John  iii:  iii:  14. 

14.  "  He  that  loveth  not,  knoweth 

"Beloved,  let  us  love  one  an-  not   God;    for   God   is   love." — 1 

other :    for  love  is  of  God ;    and  John  iv :   8. 

every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  "  If  a  man  say,  I  love  God,  and 

God,  and  knoweth  God." — 1  John  hateth  his  brother,  he  is  a  liar, 

iv  :  7.  For  he  that  loveth  not  his  broth- 

"  If  we  love  one  another,  God  er,  whom  he  hath  seen,  how  can 

dwelleth   in  us,  and  his  love   is  he  love  God,  whom  he  hath  not 

perfected  in  us." — 1  John  iv  :  12.  seen?" — 1  John  iv  :  20. 

"  Every  one  that  loveth  him 
that  begat,  loveth  him  also  that 
is  begotten  of  him." — 1  John  v  :  1. 

Now,  reader,  look  first  on  this  side,  and  secondly,  on 
that,  and  then  tell  me,  can  a  man  be  on  this  side  and 
be  still  in  his  sins  ?  Can  he  be  on  that,  and  be  a  suita- 
ble subject  for  baptism  ?     Mr.  Lard  must  get  his  subject 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  283 

of  baptism  out  of  the  one  or  of  the  other  of  these  classes. 
Well,  if  he  takes  them  from  among  those  who  love,  does 
he  take  them  still  in  their  sins?  Most  surely  not.  Well, 
if  he  takes  them  from  among  those  who  do  not  love,  can 
their  baptism  do  them  any  good?  This  brings  us  to 
consider — 

5.  If  the  sinner  is  baptized  before  he  loves  Jesus  Christ, 
the  act  itself  is  sinful,  and  can  be  of  no  avail. 

Any  act  of  obedience  performed  without  love  is 
heartless,  therefore  sinful,  because  God  requires  the  heart. 
Surely,  this  needs  only  to  be  stated  to  be  believed.  But 
let  the  Bible  speak.  Isaiah  xxix :  13,  14:  "  Wherefore 
the  Lord  said,  Forasmuch  as  this  people  draw  near  to  me 
with  their  mouths,  and  with  their  lips  do  honor  me,  but 
have  removed  their  heart  far  from  me,  and  their  fear 
toward  me  is  taught  by  the  precept  of  men  :  therefore, 
will  I  proceed  to  do  a  marvelous  work,"  etc.  Again, 
Ezekiel  xxsiii :  31 :  "  They  come  unto  thee  as  the  peo- 
ple cometh,  and  they  sit  before  thee  as  my  people,  and 
they  hear  thy  words,  but  they  will  not  do  them  :  for  with 
their  mouth  they  show  much  love,  but  their  Iteart  goeth 
after  their  covetousness."  Once  more,  Matthew  xv  :  8: 
"This  people  draweth  nigh  unto  me  with  their  mouth 
and  honoreth  me  with  their  lips  ;  but  their  heart  is  far 
from  me." 

All  these  passages  fully  show  that  a  heartless  service 
is  worse  than  no  service.  It  is  hypocrisy,  than  which 
nothing  is  more  abominable  to  God. 

In  all  the  service  which  God  requires  of  his  creatures, 
the  stress  is  laid  upon  the  heart.  A  few  passages  of 
Scripture  will  show  this.  Deuteronomy  x  :  12:  "And  now, 
Israel,  what  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of  thee  but 
to  iear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways,  and 
to  love  him.  and  to  serve  the  Lord  thy  God  vith  all  ihi) 


284  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's  REVIEW   OF 

heart  and  with  all  thj/ soul."  Again,  Deuteronomy  xi : 
13:  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  if  ye  shall  hearken  dili- 
gently unto  my  commandments  which  I  command  you 
this  day,  to  love  the  Lord  your  God,  and  to  serve  him 
with  all  your  heart  and  loiih  all  your  soul."  (Compare 
Joshua  XX :  5  ;  1  Samuel  xii :  20 ;  1  Chronicles  xxviii :  9.) 
And  now,  as  Grod  requires  heart  service,  we  have  to  be 
changed  in  heart,  \n  order  to  that  service.  Hence,  Moses 
says:  '-And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  LouD  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live." 
— Deut.  XXX  :  6.  And  God  says  :  "  I  will  give  them  a 
heart  to  know  me,  that  I  am  the  Lord  ;  and  they  shall 
be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their  God  :  for  they  shall 
return  unto  me  with  their  whole  heart." — Jer.  xxiv  :  7. 
Again  :  "  I  will  give  them  one  heart,  and  one  way,  that 
they  may  fear  me  forever,  for  the  good  of  them,  and  of 
their  children  after  them." — Jer.  xxxii :  39.  Once  more: 
"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean  :  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your 
idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give 
you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  :  and  I  will 
take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will 
give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit 
within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and 
ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them." — Ezek. 
xxxvi:  25-27.     (Compare  Ezekiel  xi :   19,  20.) 

Now,  as  obedience  to  God's  command  follows  love — 
follows  a  change  of  the  heart — it  follows  pardon.  Then 
it  is  not  action  God  requires  of  the  impenitent  sinner — it 
is  contrition,  penitence,  faith.  "  For  thou  desirest  not 
sacrifice  ;  else  would  I  give  it  :  thou  delightest  not  in 
burnt-offering.  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken 
spirit:  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  0  God,  thou  wilt 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  285 

not  despise." — Psalms  li :  16,17.  Hence,  such  promises 
as  these:  "The  Lord  is  nigh  unto  them  that  are  of  a 
broken  heart;  and  saveth  such  as  be  of  a  contrite 
spirit." — Psalm  xxxiv:  18.  "For  thus  saith  the  high 
and  lofty  One  that  inhabiteth  eternity,  whose  name 
is  Holy  ;  I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place,  with  him 
also  that  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit,  to  revive 
the  spirit  of  the  humble,  and  to  revive  the  heart  of  the 
contrite  ones.'^ — Isaiah  Ivii :  15.  "  But  to  this  man  will 
I  look,  even  to  him  that  is  poor  and  of  a  contrite  spirit, 
and  trembleth  at  my  word." — Isaiah  Ixvi :  2.  And  hence 
such  a  command  as  this:  "Son,  give  me  thy  heart." — 
Prov.  xxiii :  16.  And  such  a  promise  as  this  :  "And  ye 
shall  seek  me,  and  find  me,  when  ye  shall  search  for  me 
with  all  your  heart." — Jer.  xxix  :  13.  And  such  an 
exhortation  as  this:  "Seek  the  Lord  while  he  may  be 
found,  call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  near:  let  the  wicked 
forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts  : 
and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy 
upon  him  ;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  par- 
don."— Isaiah  Iv :  6,  7.  And  hence  such  a  confession 
as  this  :  "  With  my  whole  heart  have  I  sought  thee." — • 
Psalm  cxix  :  10. 

From  all  the  foregoing  I  feel  confident  that  any  un- 
prejudiced reader  will  see  that  for  a  man  to  be  baptized 
before  his  heart  is  changed — before  he  loves  God,  and 
Christ,  and  Christians — is  for  him  to  bring  a  sacrifice 
without  a  heart — to  perform  an  act 'abominable  to  God, 
and  that  baptism  could  be  of  no  avail  to  such  a  man.  It 
could  only  add  another  sin  to  those  already  committed. 
But  let  the  sinner  wait  until  he  seeks  God  with  the 
whole  heart,  and  obtains  a  new  heart  and  right  spirit, 
and  has  the  love  of  God,  and  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
brethren  within  him,  and  I  will  defy  Mr.  Lard,  or  any 


286  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

one  else,  to  get  him  into  tlie  water  with  his  sins  still 
upon  him. 

And  now  having,  by  these  six  arguments,  as  I  fully 
believe,  established,  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  my 
position,  I  shall  plant  myself  upon  it  and  examine  Mr. 
Lard's  proof-texts  and  arguments  in  support  of  his 
position. 

Before  I  begin  this  examination,  I  must  be  indulged 
in  a  few  remarks  : 

1.  It  will  be  perceived  by  the  intelligent  reader  that 
either  I  have  put  a  wrong  construction  upon  the  many 
proof-texts  which  I  have  brought  forward  in  support  of 
my  arguments,  or  Mr.  Lard  has  put  a  wrong  construc- 
tion upon  his,  for  the  Bible  does  not  contradict  itself 
Interpreters  may  put  a  wrong  construction  upon  different 
passages,  and  thus  produce  a  conflict,  as  Mr.  Lard  and  I 
have  certainly  done:  but  the  conflict  is  between  the  in- 
terpretations, not  between  the  passages.  If  Mr.  Lard 
has  given  the  true  interpretation  to  his  texts,  then  I  have 
not  to  mine.  On  the  other  hand,  if  I  have  given  the 
true  interpretation  to  my  proof-texts,  jMr.  Lard  has  not 
to  his.  And  now  the  decision  of  this  question  belongs 
to  the  reader. 

2.  Let  the  reader  note  one  thing  before  we  advance, 
namely,  that  every  passage  brought  forward  by  me  under 
my  first  two  arguments,  and  several  passages  in  my  suc- 
ceeding arguments,  must  be  changed  and  addi'il  to  before 
they  can  be  at  all  reconciled  with  Mr.  Lard's  position  or 
interpretation  of  his  proof-texts,  while  his  proof-texts, 
taken  in  their  connection,  do  not  at  all  conflict  with 
mine.     A  just  interpretation  is  all  that  is  required. 

3.  I  wish  the  reader  to  note  that  every  proof-text 
brought  forward  by  Mr.  Lard  stands,  in  a  sense,  alone, 
having  no  parallel  passage  to  throw  light  upon  it;  and 


Jeter's  cajipbellism  exposed.  287 

that  he  avails  himself  of  particular  phrases  or  expressions 
which  seem  to  favor  his  position,  and  attaching  but  one 
idea  to  these  phrases,  though  no  two  of  them  are  alike, 
he  drags  them  into  his  service.  For  example  :  "  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  ahall  he  saved,"  is  understood 
to  mean,  shall  be  pardoned.  And  so :  "  For  remission 
of  sins;"  "Wash  away  thy  sins;"  "Born  of  water;" 
"  Washing  of  water  by  the  word  ;"  "  Washing  of  regen- 
eration ;"  "  Baptism  now  saves  us,"  etc  ,  etc.  Whereas 
my  proof-texts  are  uniform  in  expression,  numerous,  and 
have  many  parallels,  and  are  taken  by  me  in  their  plain, 
unqualified,  and  obvious  sense. 

4.  Note  one  more  fact  before  we  pass  :  I  have  estab- 
lished my  position  by  the  testimony  of  prophets  and 
apostles,  and  the  Savior  himself,  by  taking  their  testimony 
without  note  or  comment,  while  Mr.  Lard  can  not  go  be- 
yond Pentecost  and  quote  a  word  from  prophet,  or  apostle, 
or  Christ,  in  favor  of  his  position,  without  giving  it  a 
prosj)€ctive  bearing,  and  he  can  not  reconcile  a  large  por- 
tion of  what  prophets,  and  apostles,  and  Christ  have  said, 
with  his  position,  without  putting  words  into  their  mouths 
they  never  uttered,  or  explaining  away  what  is  incon- 
gruous. Now,  these  things  being  so,  the  inference  is 
strongly  in  favor  of  my  side  of  this  question  :  for  it  can 
scarcely  be  supposed  that  the  mas^  of  Scripture,  both  of 
the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament,  should  be  made  thus 
to  bend  to  a  few  isolated  passages  doubtfully  interpreted. 
No,  these  passages  must  bend  to  the  mass. 

The  reader  will  remember  that  Mr.  Lard's  proposition 
is  this  :  "  We  maintain  that  the  sinner,  though  a  believer, 
is  still  required  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  in  order  to  the 
remission  of  his  sins,  and,  consequently,  that  they  are  not 
remitted  before,  and  without  bcq)tism." 

There  are  two  errors,  as  I  conceive,  in  this  proposition, 


288  AN    EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

to  which  it  is  necessary  to  call  attention  :  1st.  The  sin- 
ner, though  a  believer,  is  atill  required  to  repent ;  2d.  Sins 
are  not  remitted  before  and  without  baptism. 

The  first  part  of  this  proposition  is  erroneous,  because 
it  implies  that  one  can  be  a  believer  in  impenitence. 
My  proposition  speaks  o?  a.  penitent  believer.  Mr.  Lard's 
of  an  mjpenitent  believer.  Now,  I  maintain  that  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  an  impenitent  believer.  In  proof  of 
this,  I  state  the  fact  that  in  every  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  where  repentance  and  faith  are  spoken  of, 
repentance  is  put  first.  The  followini;  are  the  only  ex- 
amples: Mark  i:  14,  15:  "Now,  after  that  John  was 
put  in  prison,  Jesus  came  into  Galilee,  preaching  the 
Gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  saying,  The  time  is 
fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand:  repent  ye, 
and  believe  the  Gos^pcL^'  Here  Jesus  puts  repentance  first. 
Acts  XX  :  21  :  "  Testifying  both  to  the  Jews,  and  also  to 
the  Greeks,  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  toicard  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Here  Paul  observes  the  same  order. 
Matt,  xxi :  32:  "For  John  came  unto  you  in  the  way 
of  righteousness,  and  ye  believed  him  not :  but  the  pub- 
licans and  the  harlots  believed  him  :  and  ye,  when  ye 
had  seen  it,  repented  not  afterward,  that  ye  might  believe 
himy  Here  the  Savior  represents  repentance  as  neces- 
sary to  faith. 

Not  only  do  the  Scriptures  represent  repentance  as 
preceding  faith,  but  the  nature  of  the  case  suggests  the 
same  order.  Faith  recognizes  Jesus  Christ  as  our  Re- 
deemer and  Savior,  and  expects  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
through  him.  It  must,  therefore,  be  the  act  of  one  who 
feels  his  'need  of  salvation  and  forgiveness;  but  impeni- 
tent sinners  do  not  feel  this  need,  therefore  they  can  not 
exercise  this  faith. 

But  one  may  be  ready  to  ask,  Can  an  unbeliever  be- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  289 

come  penitent?  Does  not  Paul  say  that  he  who  comes 
to  God  must  helieve.  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  him  ?  Yes,  Paul  says  that 
in  Hebrews  xi :  6.  The  truth  in  the  case  is  this  :  an 
atheist  can  not  repent,  nor  can  an  infidel  or  deist.  Men 
must  acknowledge  the  being  of  Grod  before  they  can  be 
conscious  of  having  offended  him;  and  they  must  recog- 
nize the  existence  and  authority  of  his  law  before  they 
can  feel  that  they  have  transgressed ;  and  hence,  so  far 
as  faith  has  respect  to  these,  it  must  precede  repentance. 
But  the  faith  of  which  we  are  now  speaking  has  respect 
to  Jesus  Christ  as  "lifted  up"  (John  iii :  14)  for  our 
deliverance  from  the  guilt  and  thralldom  of  sin.  Now, 
we  will  never  believe  in,  or  trust  him  as  such,  until  we 
feel  our  guilt  and  our  thralldom  ;  but  we  never  feel  these 
while  impenitent,  therefore  we  never  thus  believe  or  trust 
in  Christ  while  impenitent.  Now,  as  the  faith  that  issues 
in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  is  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  or  an  actual  trust  in  him  for  salvation,  it  is  not, 
and  can  not  be  exercised  only  by  penitent  sinners.  Let 
these  remarks  suffice  on  this  point. 

Henceforth  we  have  to  do  with  the  second  part  of  Mr. 
Lard's  proposition  :  "Sins  are  not  remitted  before  and 
without  baptism."  I  must  do  Mr.  Lard  the  justice  to 
say  he  does  not  regard  this  as  a  universal  law.  He 
specifies  its  limitations.  He  says  :  "  We  speak  not  of 
the  innocent  babe,  the  irresponsible  idiot,  or  untaught 
heathen."  In  another  place  he  extends  the  limitation, 
(p.  236 :)  "  On  the  contrary  he  (Mr.  Campbell)  teaches 
that  the  following  classes  will  be  saved  without  entering 
it,  (the  kingdom  of  God,  which  Mr.  Lard  and  Mr.  Camp- 
bell contend  none  can  enter  without  baptism  :)  1.  All 
infants;  2.  All  idiots;  3.  Many  heathens;  4.  Many 
honest    people,    who    are    kept    in    profound    ignorance 

i:; 


290         AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

of  their    duty    by    the    teaching    of    such    men   as   Mr. 
Jeter." 

That  is  rich.  God  will  save  the  infant  and  idiot  with- 
out baptism,  on  account  of  irresponsibility,  and  many  of 
the  heathens  and  Pedobaptists  and  Baptists,  without  re- 
quiring them  to  be  immersed  in  order  to  the  remission 
of  their  sins,  on  account  of  ignorance !  What  a  fearful 
thing,  then,  knowledge  is  !  It  makes  essential  one  more 
term  of  salvation!  Be  it  known,  then,  that  "a  little 
knowledge  is  a  dangerous  thing."  Campbellites  have 
superior  knowledge  of  duty  to  other  people  ;  therefore, 
while  Grod  will  save  others  without  it,  he  will  not  save 
Campbellites  unless  they  go  into  the  water  !  Mr.  Lard's 
limitations  plainly  show  that  baptism  is  essential  to  the 
salvation  of  no  one  but  a  Campbellite.  Ought  we  not 
with  this  to  be  content?  No,  we  can  not  be,  because  we 
apprehend  that  there  is  danger  of  supplanting  the  blood 
of  Christ  by  the  waters  of  baptism,  and  of  causing  the 
soul  to  rest  here  and  fail  of  the  blessedness  of  the  man 
to  whom  the  Lord  imputes  righteousness  without  ivories. 

§  10. — MR.    lard's   first    ARGUMENT. 

Mr.  Lard  begins  the  defense  of  his  own  position  thus  : 
'''■The  passage  on  lohich  we  hase  onr  first  argument  is  the 
following :  '  Go  ye  into  all  the  tvorld  and  preach  the  Gos- 
pel to  every  creature.  He  that  helieveth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;   but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'  " 

I  can  not  transcribe  the  whole  of  Mr.  Lard's  argument 
upon  this  text,  but  I  will  notice  all  the  material  points 
which  he  has  made. 

1.  He  says :  "  The  salvation  here  spoken  of  is  that 
primary  salvation  which  consists  in  the  remission  of 
pins." 

2.  It  depends  on  two  conditions  :  belief  and  baptism. 


JKTER's    CAMPKICLLISM    EXPOSED.  291 

3.  lie  then  states  a  rule  which  he  thinks  clinches  the 
nnil  :  "  Whrn  salvation  is  'j^romised  to  any  person,  or  af- 
firnicd  of  liim,  on  certain  named  conditions,  though  it  may 
depend  on  more  conditions  than  those  named,  it  can  never 
depend  on  less." 

Now,  taking  tliese  three  postulates  as  true,  it  follows, 
that  in  this  passage  the  Savior  has  made  remission  of 
sins  depend  on  belief  and  baptism.  Then  let  us  exam- 
ine the  postulates : 

1.  "  The  salvation  here  spok'en  of,  is  that  primary  sal- 
vation which  consists  in  the  remission  of  sins."  Is  this 
so?     I  think  not,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1st.  Salvation  does  not  consist  merely  in  the  remission 
of  sins.  It  consists  in  more  than  remission.  If  it  did 
not,  it  would  still  leave  us  in  the  possession  of  an  im- 
pure heart  and  carnal  aifections.  The  remission  of  sins 
is  only  a  part  of  salvation.  While  it  separates  our  sins 
as  far  from  us  as  the  east  is  from  the  west,  it  creates  within 
us  clean  hearts,  and  renews  within  us  riglit  spirits.  While 
God  cleanses  us  from  all  our  filthiness.  and  removes  our 
transgressions  from  us,  he,  at  the  same  time,  takes  away 
the  heart  of  stone  and  gives  a  heart  of  flesh.  While  he 
remembers  our  sins  no  more,  he  writes  his  law  upon  our 
hearts,  and  imprints  it  upon  our  minds,  and  he  thus  lays 
the  foundation  for  our  subsequent  obedience  to  him,  and 
of  our  final  glorification  in  heaven. 

2d.  It  is  not  that  primary  salvation  of  which  Mr.  Lard 
speaks.  I  know  of  but  one  salvation.  Regeneration 
and  pardon  is  salvation  begun.  A  continuance  in  obe- 
dience and  well-doing,  is  salvation  in  progress ;  and 
final  acceptance  and  admission  into  heaven,  is  salvation 
completed.  It  is,  therefore,  a  salvation  from  sin. — Matt, 
i :  21.  It  is  a  salvation  from  ungodliness. — Rom.  xi :  26." 
And  it  is  a  salvation  from  wrath. — Rom.  v:  9:  1  Thess.  ' 


292         AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW    OF 

i :  10,  But  Mr.  Lard's  notion  is,  that  a  sinner,  when  he 
believes  and  is  baptized,  obtains  a  primary  and  present 
salvation,  i.  e.,  remission  oi  past  sins.  And  he  now  be- 
comes a  candidate  for  finals  or  a  secondary  salvation. 
But  whether  he  shall  ever  obtain  this  final  salvation,  is 
left  to  be  determined  afterward.  And  now  his  view  is, 
that  Jesus  here  speaks  of  this  primary,  and  not  of  this 
secondary  salvation.  Here  he  is  evidently  wrong.  The 
Bible  knows  nothing  of  these  primary  and  secondary 
salvations.  And  even  if  it  did,  we  would  be  required  to 
take  the  term  here  in  its  secondary  sense,  because  it  is 
used  antithetically  with  "shall  be  damned:"  "He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  he  saved:  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not,  shall  he  damned."  Antitheses  run  parallel 
with  each  other,  and  they  must  be  co-extensive.  Now, 
whatever  is  the  meaning  and  extent  of  "  shall  be  damned," 
the  term,  "shall  be  saved,"  must  be  of  equal  extent. 
There  is  a  sense  in  which  an  unbeliever  is  condemned 
already,  (John  iii  :  18.)  And  so  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  he  that  believeth  is  not  condemned,  (same  verse;) 
but  the  text  we  are  now  considering  speaks  not  of  the 
present,  but  of  the  future — "shall  be  saved,"  "shall  be 
damned."  The  term,  "  shall  be  damned"  is  expressive 
of  the  final  issue  or  result  of  unbelief,  and,  therefore, 
"  shall  be  saved"  is  expressive  of  the  final  issue  or  result 
of  faith  and  obedience. 

2.  This  salvation,  Mr.  Lard  tells  us,  depends  on  belief 
and  baptism.  Well,  I  will  admit,  for  the  present,  for 
argument  sake,  that  it  does,  and  yet  contend  that  it  docs 
not  sustain  Mr.  Lard's  proposition.  3Ir.  Lard's  propo- 
sition is,  that  remission  of  sins  depends  on  belief  and 
baptism.  The  text  says :  Salvation  depends  on  belief 
and  baptism,  (meaning  by  the  term,  salvation  completed, 
not  salvation  begun,  as  I  have  shown.)     Now,  can  the 


JBTEll's   CAMPCELLISM    EXPOSED.  293 

text  sustain  the  proposition  ?  Does  it  follow  tliat  because 
one  thing  depends  upon  a  certain  condition,  another 
thing  also  depends  upon  it?  Surely  not.  And  right 
here  Mr.  Lard's  sophistry  appears.  He  has  reinission  of 
silts  in  his  proposition,  he  has  saved  in  his  test,  and  then 
makes  his  text  sustain  his  proposition,  by  the  convenient 
method  of  taking  it  for  granted  that  this  saved  "consists 
in  the  remission  of  sins  !"  But  now  the  reader  may  be 
curious  to  know  in  what  way  I  will  take  back  my  admis- 
sion that  salvation  depends  on  belief  and  baptism.  Well, 
I  will  take  it  back  by  this  single  quotation  :  "  I  will  have 
mercy  and  not  sacrifice." — Matt,  xii :  7.  No  man  can  be 
saved  without  possessing  the  spirit  of  obedience.  He 
must  have  it  in  his  heart  to  obey  God.  And  where  men 
have  it  in  their  hearts  to  obey  (iod,  they  only  need  the 
knowledge  of  his  will,  and  the  opportunity  of  doing  it, 
to  obey.  And  where  the  spirit  or  will  is  possessed,  but 
the  knowledge  or  the  opportunity  is  wanting,  the  will  is 
taken  for  the  deed  on  the  above  principle.  Just  as.  God 
justified  David  in  unlawfully  eating  the  showbread,  and 
Jesus  his  disciples  in  plucking  ears  of  corn  on  the  Sab- 
bath day,  though  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  seemed  to  have 
been  infringed,  upon  the  principle  of  having  mercy  and 
not  sacrifice,  so  will  he  accept  of  the  obedient  believer, 
though  he  may,  through  ignorance  or  inability,  fail  to 
keep  all  his  commands — fail  to  be  baptized.  But  I  never 
have  aflBrmed,  and  I  presume  that  no  Baptist  ever  has, 
that  one  can  be  saved  without  baptism,  who,  knowing  it 
to  be  his  duty,  yet  contemns  the  ordinance.  Such  a  one 
would  be  condemned,  not  so  much  for  the  want  of  bap- 
tism as  for  the  want  of  the  very  spirit  of  religion  :  "He 
that  hatl\  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is 
that  loveth  me  :  and  he  that  loveth  me,  shall  be  loved  of 
my  Father,  and  I  will  love  hira,  and  will  manifest  myself 


294  AN    EXAMINATION   OP    LAUd's   REVIEW    OF 

to  him/' — John  xiv :  21.  "For  this  is  the  love  of  God, 
that  we  keep  his  commandments;  and  his  commandments 
are  not  grievous." — 1  John  v:  3.  "He  that  saith,  I 
know  him,  and  keepeth  not  his  commandments,  is  a  liar, 
and  the  truth  is  not  in  him."— 1  John  ii :  4. 

From  the  above  the  reader  can  see  that  I  am  willing 
to  take,  in  all  its  force,  the  text  "  He  that  believeth, 
and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  The  faith  which  saves 
is  penitent,  cordial,  and  obedient.  Its  obedience  begins 
with  baptism,  but  it  does  not  stop  there,  but,  by  patient 
continuance  in  well-doing,  it  seeks  for  glory,  and  honor, 
and  immortality,  and  eternal  life.  But  be  it  remem- 
bered that  while  salvation  is  affirmed  of  him  who  be- 
lieves and  is  baptized,  justification  is  never  so  affirmed. 
So  far  as  conditions  on  our  part  are  concerned,  it  is 
uniformly  affirmed  of  the  believer,  (see  first  two  argu- 
ments,) without  the  mention  of  anything  else,  (except  by 
James,  in  the  case  of  Abraham  offering  Isaac,  which  has 
already  been  explained.)  I  claim,  therefore,  that  "  He 
that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,"  yields  no 
support  to  Mr.  Lard's  proposition,  and  offers  no  objection 
to  mine. 

But  how  about  Mr.  Lard's  rule  ?  Well,  it,  like  his 
text,  even  if  it  were  sound,  can  give  his  proposition  no 
support,  because  the  affirmation  of  sah-ation,  on  certain 
named  conditions,  is  not  the  affirmation  of  remission  on 
those  conditions.  But  is  the  rule  sound  ?  I  think  not. 
I  believe  that  all  logicians  admit  that  a  rule  which  proves 
too  much  is  unsound.  Well,  the  following  example 
shows  that  Mr.  Lard's  rule  proves  too  much  :  Luke 
xviii  :  18-2G.  Here  we  have  recorded  the  case  of  a 
young  ruler,  who,  full  of  anxiety,  came  to  Jesus,  and 
asked  him  what  he  must  do  to  inherit  eternal  life.  Jesus 
required,  among  other  things,  that  he  should  sell  all  he 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  295 

had,  and  distribute  to  the  poor,  and  afl&rmed  that  he 
should  have  treasure  in  heaven.  Now  note,  to  have 
eternal  life,  to  have  treasure  in  heaven,  and  to  be  saved, 
are  equivalent  expressions.  This  is  proved  by  the  ques- 
tion of  the  apostles,  "  Who,  then,  can  be  saved  ?" 

Now,  according  to  Mr.  Lard's  rule,  as  salvation  is  here 
affirmed  of  this  young  ruler  on  the  condition  of  his  sell- 
ing all  he  had,  and  giving  the  proceeds  to  the  poor,  it 
can  never  depend  on  less  than  this  condition  !  Is  Mr. 
Lard  prepared  for  this  conclusion  ?  If  so,  he  is  still  in 
his  sins,  and  without  eternal  life  !  for  he  has  never  him- 
self complied  with  it ! 

Jesus  finally  affirmed,  "There  is  no  man  that  hath  left 
house,  or  parents,  or  brethren,  or  wife,  or  children,  for 
the  kingdom  of  Grod's  sake,  who  shall  not  receive  mani- 
fold more  in  this  present  time,  and  in  the  world  to  come 
life  everlasting." — Vs.  29,  30.  Now,  let  Mr.  Lard  apply 
his  rule  to  this  affirmation,  and  then  ask  himself  if  he 
has  ever  forsaken  house,  parents,  brethren,  wife,  children, 
for  the  kingdom  of  God's  sake?  If  he  has  not,  it  is 
time  he  was  up  and  doing  :  for  he  must  either  do  these 
things,  or  loose  his  rule,  or  lose  his  soul !  ! 

So  much,  then,  for  Mr.  Lard's  argument  and  first 
proof-text. 

MR.    lard's   second   ARGUMENT. 

"  The  passage  on  which  we  found  our  second  argu- 
ment," says  Mr.  Lard,  "  is  the  following  : 

'"  Tliai  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  he  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.' — Acts  ii:  38." 

Mr.  Lard  afiirras  that  "this  passage  teaches  that  bap- 
tism, with  repentance,  i^  for — that  is,  is  necessary  to— the 


296  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

remission  of  sins  ;  that  it  makes  remission  depend  on 
baptism  in  precisely  the  same  sense  in  which  it  makes 
it  depend  on  repentance;  and  that  a  connection  is  thus 
established  between  them  of  a  nature  so  permanent  that 
remission  is,  in  all  cases,  (previous  exceptions  aside,) 
consequent  on  baptism  and  never  precedes  it." 

Now,  is  this  true  ?  I  pronounce  it  untrue,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons : 

1.  It  makes  this  text  incongruous  with  the  general 
tenor  of  Scripture  on  this  subject,  (see  first  two  argu- 
ments,) and  with  the  declarations  of  the  Apostle  Peter, 
made  elsewhere.  Acts  x  :  43  :  "  To  him  give  all  the 
prophets  witness,  that  through  Jiis  name  loJiosocvcr  hcllev- 
eth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins.'^  Peter  here 
asserts  that  the  testimony  of  all  the  prophets  is,  that  re- 
mission of  sins  is  through  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
received  by  every  believer.  But  this  Mr.  Lard's  inter- 
pretation of  his  language  at  Pentecost  denies.  He  makes 
Peter  there  deny  remission  to  the  believer  unless  he  is 
baptized. 

And  now,  the  reader  must  see  that  we  must  either  pro- 
nounce Mr.  Lard's  interpretation  of  Peter's  language  at 
Pentecost  false,  or  we  must  add  to  his  language  at  CiJesa- 
rea.  We  must  understand  him  as  saying,  at  the  latter 
place,  "To  him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through 
his  name  whosoever  believes,  and  is  hapfized,  shall  receive 
remission  of  sins."  And  now,  suppose  that  Peter  liad 
actually  said  that,  and  we  were  to  inquire  which  of  the 
prophets  had  so  testified,  could  our  inquiry  ever  be 
answered?  No.  Wg  might  read  from  the  beginning  of 
Genesis  to  the  end  of  Malachi,  and  we  would  meet  with 
no  such  prophetic  testimony.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
meet  with  the  testimony  of  many  in  support  of  the  dec- 
laration as  Peter  has  actually  made  it.      Let  us  examine 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  21)7 

the  testimony  of  some  of  them.  God  said  to  Abra- 
ham :  "And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
be  blessed." — G-en.  xxii :  18.  Well,  Paul  tells  us  that 
the  term  "  seed  "  here  means  Christ.  "  He  saith  not, 
And  to  srcJs^  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy 
seed,  which  is  Christ." — Gal.  iii :  IG.  And  this  was  said 
to  Abraham  because  the  Scripture  foresaw  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  tlirougli  fuitJi. — Gal.  iii:  8. 
To  justify  is  to  pardon. 

Again,  Moses  says:  "Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  (his 
faith)  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness." — Gen.xv:  G. 
So  Paul  says  of  all  believers  :  "  To  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly, 
Ms  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness." — Rom,  iv  :  5. 
And  the  fact  that  iVbrahani's  faith  was  counted  to  him 
for  righteousness  "  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone, 
but  for  us  also,  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  loe  hdieve 
on  Him  who  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead." — 
Rom.  iv  :  23,  2'!.  And  now,  just  as  no  act  of  Abra- 
ham's intervened  between  his  faith  and  his  justification 
as  a  condition  of  it,  so  no  act  of  ours  is  to  intervene  be- 
tween our  faith  and  our  justification  as  a  condition  of  it. 
This,  then,  is  the  testimony  of  Moses  as  explained  by  Paul. 
Compare  Galatians  iii :  14  ;  and  Romans  iv  :  9-lG. 

Let  us  next  examine  Isaiah.  "  Therefore  thus  saith 
the  Lord  God,  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation  a 
stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious-corner  stone,  a  sure 
foundation  :  he  that  believeth  shall  not  malce  haste.'' — • 
Isaiah  xxviii :  16.  Here  Isaiah  testifies  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  of  the  benefits  the  heliever  receives  through  him. 
What  is  the  import  of  his  testimony  ?  When  the  prophet 
says,  "  He  that  believeth  on  him  shall  not  make  haste," 
does  he  include  the  forgiveness  of  sins?  I  will  let  Paul 
answer  :   "  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord 


298  AN    EXAMINATION    OV    LARu's    REVIEW    OP 

Jesus,  and  sbalt  believe  in  tbine  heart  that  God  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For  with 
the  heart,  man  believeth  unto  righteousness  ;  and  with 
the  mouth,  confession  is  made  unto  salvation.  For  the 
Scripture  saith,  Whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  not  be 
ashamed." — Kom.  s  :  9-11.  Here,  then,  according  to 
Paul,  this  language  of  Isaiah  proves,  that  with  the  heart 
man  hcl/'cves  inifo  righteousness^^  i.  e.,  justification.  It 
proves,  then,  that  his  faith  eventuates  in  pardon  :  for,  as 
before  remarked,  justification  includes  pardon.  Be  it 
noted  that  faith  is,  but  baptism  is  not,  in  the  testimony 
of  Isaiah. 

We  have  not  only  the  commentary  of  Paul,  but  also 
of  Peter,  on  this  testimony  of  Isaiah  :  "  Wherefore  also 
it  is  contained  in  the  Scripture,  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a 
chief  corner-stone,  elect,  precious  :  and  he  that  believeth 
on  him  shall  not  be  confounded.  Unto  you  therefore 
■iclilch  believe  he  is  precious." — 1  Peter  ii :  6,  7.  Here  is 
a  perfect  agreement  between  the  testimony  and  the  com- 
mentary. And  both  agree  with  Peter's  declaration  at 
Caesarea. 

Wc  will  next  examine  Ilabakkuk.  His  testimony  is: 
"The  just  shall  live  Ltj  faith."  AVell,  what  is  the  im- 
port of  this  testimony?  I  will  let  Paul  answer  :  ''  For  I 
am  not  ashamed  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ :  for  it  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth  ; 
to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek.  For  therein  is 
the  righteousness  of  God  revealed  from  faith  to  i'aith  :" 
(or  as  Macknight,  as  I  think,  more'  correctly  renders  it, 
"  For  therein  is  the  righteousness  of  God  by  faith  revealed 
in  order  to  faith ;")  "  as  it  is  written.  The  just  shall  live 
hij  faith."  Here,  again,  we  see  a  perfect  accordance  be- 
tween the  testimony  of  Ilabakkuk  and  the  commentary 
of  Paul  and  the  declaration  of  Peter  at  Oa3sarca. 


JETER'h   CAMPHELL18M    EXPOSED.  299 

Paul  comments  on  this  testimony  of  the  prophet  iu 
another  place  thus  :  "  But  that  no  man  is  justified  by  the 
law  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  is  evident :  for,  The  just  shall 
live  hy  faith.'' — Gal.  iii :  11.  The  apostle  is  here  plac- 
ing justification  Upon  the  condition  of  faith  to  the  exclu- 
Sinn  of  works,  and  he  sustains  himself  by  the  prophet's 
testimony.  IIow  diflferent  this  from  Mr.  Lard's  inter- 
pretation of  Peter's  words  at  Pentecost.  He  would  keep 
the  believer  in  a  state  of  death  and  condemnation  until 
baptized!  Habakkuk  says,  the  just  live  by  faith;  but 
Mr.  Lard  says,  they  live  by  faith  and  baptism ! 

Paul  gives  us  a  third  commentary  on  this  testimony  of 
the  prophet,  thus:  "Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith: 
but  if  any  man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleas- 
ure in  him.  But  we  are  not  of  them  who  draw  back 
unto  perdition  ;  but  of  them  that  believe  to  the  saving  of 
the  soul." — Heb.  x :  38,  39.  Here  Paul  does  not  say,  we 
are  of  them  Avho  believe,  and  m-e  haptized  to  the  saving 
of  the  soul.  And,  had  he  said  it,  he  could  not  have 
proved  it  by  Habakkuk. 

I  might  quote  the  testimony  of  other  prophets,  but 
these  are  ample.  And  I  prefer  these  because  we  have 
apostolic  comments  upon  them.  The  testimony  of  the 
prophet,  and  the  commentary  of  the  apostle,  form  a  united 
testimony  of  such  strength  as  can  not  be  resisted. 

And  now,  reader,  shall  we  force  this  statement  of  Peter 
at  Ca3sarea,  into  an  agreement  with  Mr.  Lard's  interpre- 
tation of  his  words  at  Pentecost,  or  shall  we  reject  his 
interpretation  and  explain  for  ourselves  Peter's  words  at 
Pentecost  so  as  to  make  them  harmonize  with  his  declara- 
tion at  Cajsarea  ?  Evidently  we  must  do  the  latter,  be- 
cause this  declaration  is  backed  by  the  testimony  of  the 
prophets,  as  we  have  seen.  And,  methinks,  if  the  proph- 
ets could  again  speak,  they  would  with  united  voice  say  '^ 


300  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

'•  We  never,  in  all  our  lives,  said  that  a  believer  in  Jesus 
could  not  receive  the  remission  of  his  sins  unless  he  went 
into  the  water  ! !" 

Before  I  proceed  to  examine  the  meaning  of  Peter's 
declaration  at  Pentecost,  there  is  one  more  objection 
which  I  must  urge  against  Mr.  Lard's  interpretation.  It 
is  this :  If  the  words  of  the  apostle  Peter  make  baptism 
and  repentance  equally  necessary  to  remission,  so  do  they 
make  them  equally  necessary  to  the  reception  of  the  Ifofi/ 
Spirit.  This  also  conflicts  with  Peter's  statements  else- 
where. Let  us  go  to  Acts  xv  :  Here  the  apostles  and 
elders  have  come  together  to  consider  the  question  which 
the  Judaizing  teachers  had  sprung  upon  them,  viz.:  that 
the  Gentiles  must  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of 
Moses,  or  they  could  not  be  saved.  Peter  took  the  neg- 
ative of  this  question.  Now,  let  us  hear  his  speech : 
"  Men  and  brethren,  ye  know  now  that  a  good  while  ago 
God  made  choice  among  us,  that  the  Gentiles  by  my 
mouth  should  hear  the  word  of  the  Gospel  and  believe. 
And  God,  who  knoweth  the  hearts,  bare  them  witness, 
giving  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto  iis :  and 
jiut  no  difference  bcticcen  ns  and  them,  purifying  their 
hearts  hy  faith." 

Here  the  apostle  refers  to  the  conversion  of  Cornelius 
and  his  friends,  at  Caesarea,  which  took  place  about  ten 
years  before  this  meeting  at  Jerusalem.  (Sec  Acts  x.) 
Now,  let  us  inquire  how  God  gave  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
these  Gentiles.  Did  he  bestow  this  gift  upon  them  on 
condition  of  their  baptism  ?  No  ;  they  received  the  gift 
hefore  they  were  baptized.  Now,  if  God  would  not  be- 
stow this  gift  on  the  Jews  at  Pentecost,  only  on  condi- 
tion of  their  baptism,  and  yet  gave  it  to  the  Gentiles 
without  any  such  condition,  then  he  put  a  material  dif- 
ference between,  them.      But  Peter  says,   in   the  above 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  301 

speech,  he  did  not!  There  is  no  escape  from  this. 
Peter  most  certainly  understood  his  own  language  at 
Pentecost,  and  in  the  council.  Did  he  contradict  him- 
self? No.  Then  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  did  not 
mean  at  Pentecost  what  Mr.  Lard  said  he  did. 

This  conclusion  is  corroborated  by  two  other  consid- 
erations, namely:  The  ground  of  the  astonisltment  felt  by 
those  of  the  circumcision  who  accompanied  Peter  to  Cnc- 
sarea,  and  his  defense  before  the  Church  at  Jerusalem. 
The  ground  of  the  astonishment  of  these  Jews  was,  not 
that  the  Gentiles  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
before  baptism,  but  that  they  received  it  at  all.  But  if 
they  had  understood  Peter's  words  at  Pentecost  as  Mr. 
Lard  does,  the  former  would  have  been  their  ground  of 
astonishment. 

In  his  defense  before  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  Peter 
said  :  "And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
all  them  who  heard  the  word,  as  on  its  at  the  beginning. 
Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he 
said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water  ;  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Forasmuch,  then,  as 
God  gave  them  the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us,  icho  be- 
lieved on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  what  was  I  that  I  could 
withstand  God?"  Hearing  this  the  Church  ^^  held  their 
peace  and  glorified  God,  saying,  Then  hath  God  to  the 
Gentiles  also  granted  repentance  unto  life." 

Now,  be  it  remembered,  that  the  very  three  thousand, 
or  at  least  the  most  of  them,  to  whom  Peter  said,  "  Re- 
pent and  be  baptized,  etc.,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  who  then  gladly  received  the 
word,  were  baptized  and  added  to  the  Church,  heard  Peter'3 
defense.  Then  is  it  not  a  wonder  that  thei/  held  their 
peace?  When  Peter  said,  that  "God  gave  the  Gentiles 
the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us  who  believed  on  the  Lord 


302  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's    REVIEW  OF 

Jesus  Christ,"  is  it  not  a  wonder  they  had  not  said, 
"  Stop,  Peter  !  Are  you  not  mistaken  ?  Did  you  not 
tell  us  at  Pentecost  that  we  must  repent  and  be  baptized 
in  order  to  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  And  did 
you  not  just  now  tell  us,  that  while  you  were  speaking 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  the  Gentiles,  and  hence  before 
their  baptism?  And  are  you  going  now  to  tell  us  that 
God  gave  this  gift  to  them  as  he  did  unto  us?"  Now, 
these  two  considerations  place  it  beyond  doubt  that  Mr. 
Lard  has  mistaken  the  meaning  of  Peter's  language 
at  Pentecost.  He  could  not  have  uttered  sentiments 
there  incompatible  with  those  uttered  by  him  at  Ctesarea 
and  before  the  council  and  Church  at  Jerusalem. 

I  shall  now  undertake  to  show  what  Peter  did  mean. 
This,  however,  I  must  remark,  is  not  necessary  so  far  as 
the  issue  between  me  and  Mr.  Lard  is  concerned.  It  is 
enough  for  me  to  show,  as  I  have  done,  that  he  has  not 
given  its  meaning. 

Peter  does  not  make  repentance  and  baptism  sus- 
tain the  same  relation  to  remission  of  sins.  The  word 
repent  is  independent  of  the  remainder  of  the  sentence. 
It  is  not,  "  Every  one  of  you  repent  and  be  baptized," 
etc.  The  nominative  to  "repent"  is  not  "everyone," 
but  "ye."  The  Greek  is  (.Litavorica-te;  an  imperative  in 
the  plural.  It  can  not,  therefore,  have  a  singular  nomi- 
native. The  word  rendered  "be  baptized,"  is  j5arctio0itvi. 
It  is  not  an  imperative,  nor  is  it  plural.  "  Every  one  " 
is  its  nominative.  Hence,  the  literal  and  correct  trans- 
lation would  be  :  "  Repent  ye,  and  let  every  one  of  you 
be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  "  For  remission  of  sins,"  then,  whatever 
may  be  its  meaning,  is  stated  as  a  reason  for  the  latter 
command  and  not  for  the  former.  The  command  to  re- 
pent is  given  imperatively,  without  a  reason — Repent  _ye. 


JETEll'8    CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  303 

There  was  reason  enough  for  this  found  in  their  conscious 
guilt  and  consequent  alarm.  But  the  reason  why  they 
should  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  so 
apparent,  hence  a  reason  is  given  :  "  For  the  remission 
of  sins."  This  fact  cuts  up  Mr.  Lard's  ai'gument  by  the 
roots,  for  it  is  based  upon  the  hypothesis  that  "repent" 
and  "  be  baptized  "  take  the  same  nominative,  when  they 
do  not. 

In  order  to  convince  the  reader  that  I  am  not  here 
misrepresenting,  I  will  give  a  long  quotation  :  '-Finally, 
we  conclude,  from  the  grounds  now  before  us,  that  the 
relation  of  baptism  to  remission  of  sins  is  such  that  bap- 
tism, like  repentance,  is  necessary  to  remission  ;  or  that 
remission  depends  on  baptism  in  precisely  the  same  sense 
in  which  it  depends  on  repentance.  And,  if  there  is 
either  value  in  criticism  or  reliance  to  be  placed  in  argu- 
ment, the  conclusion  is  indisputable. 

"But  let  us  suppose  this  position  to  be  denied,  and 
that  it  is  maintained  that  baptism  sustains  to  remission 
the  relation  of  a  subsequent  to  a  former  act,  and  what 
follows?  Clearly,  that  repentance  likewise  sustains  to 
remission  the  relation  of  a  subsequent  to  a  former  act. 
But  this  proves  too  much,  and  hence  is  false.  But  we 
wish  to  exhibit  this  position,  together  with  its  conse- 
quences, even  to  the  eye  ;  and,  in  order  to  do  so,  will 
again  have  recourse  to  the  passage,  from  which,  after 
transposing  the  clauses  as  before,  we  will  first  omit  the 
word  'repent,'  thus:  Every  one  of  you  be  baptized,  (ft?,) 
because  your  sins  are  remitted.  This  is  exactly  3Ir. 
Jeter's  position — a  tough  one,  truly.  But  let  us  grant 
that  it  is  true,  or,  rather,  that  we  have  at  last  hit  on  the 
true  meaning  of  the  particle,  and  that  it  is  ^inalterable. 
We  will  now  replace  the  word  '  repent :'  Every  one  of  you 
repent  m?  remission  of  sins." 


304  AN    EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's   REVIEW    OP 

Just  so  Mr.  Lard  had  expressed  himself  before  :  "  Ev- 
ery one  of  you  repent  and  be  baptized,  nj  remission  of 
sins."  Now,  reader,  you  see  here  that  Mr.  Lard  makes 
"  every  one  of  you  "  the  nominative  to  both  verbs.  Peter 
did  not  do  so.  Nor  will  any  sclwlar  do  so.  And  Mr. 
Lard's  doing  so  is  to  be  attributed  either  to  ignorance  or 
dishonesty.  Mr.  Lard  labors  thus  ingeniously  and  hard 
in  order  to  force  upon  us  his  translation  of  sis.  He 
knows  we  will  not  allow  that  repentance  can  be  urged  by 
the  consideration  of  a  past  remission ;  and  hence,  if  he 
can  make  both  repentance  and  baptism  be  for  remission, 
he  thinks  he  has  us  cornered.  But  in  the  net  which  he 
hid,  is  his  own  foot  taken.  In  making  out  his  case  he 
has  misrepresented  the  apostle.  Peter  never  said,  "  Every 
one  of  you  repent."  And  now,  I  wish  to  inquire,  why 
did  Peter  change  the  nominative  and  number  of  the  sec- 
ond verb?  Why  did  he  not  say:  Kepent  ye,  and  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ;  or,  as  Mr.  Lard 
has  it :  "  Every  one  of  you  repent  and  be  baptized,"  etc. 
There  is  surely  some  design  in  his  using  neither  of  these 
forms  of  expression,  but  instead  thereof  choosing  the  one 
he  did.  Not  so  did  he  speak  in  Acts  iii :  19:  "Eepent 
and  be  converted."  Both  verbs  here  are  in  the  plural 
and  have  the  same  nominative. 

The  reason  why  the  apostle  did  change  the  nominative 
after  "repent,"  and  before  "be  baptized,"  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  repentance  is  a  command  of  universal  obli- 
gation, while  baptism  is  not.  Baptism  is  obligatory  only 
on  penitent  believers.  Peter  commands  the  whole  multi- 
tude to  repent:  but  he  commands  such  only  of  that 
multitude  as  obeyed  the  first  command,  to  be  baptized. 
Hence  it  is  said  in  the  forty-first  verse  :  "  Then  they 
that  gladly  received  his  xvord  were  haptizcd .^^ 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  strengthened    by  the  fact 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  305 

that  in  no  place  are  persons  commanded  to  repent  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ.  Any  one  who  will  be  at  the  pains 
of  examining  the  following  passages,  can  test  the  truth 
of  this  remark:  Matthew  iii :  2;  iv  :  17;  Mark  i :  15  ; 
vi :  12;  Luke  ^iii :  3,  5;  Acts  iii:  19;  viii :  22;  xvii : 
30  ;  xxvi :  20.  But  baptism  is  frequently  if  not  always 
enjoined  in  his  name.  (See  Acts  viii:  XQ\  x :  48 ;  xix  : 
5;  Romans  vi:  3;  Gralatians  iii :  27.) 

If  Mr.  Lard's  view  of  the  passage  be  correct,  it  might 
be  read,  and  it  must  be  understood,  thus  :  Repent  every 
one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  remission  of 
sins ;  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  for  remission  of  sins.  But,  as  we  have  seen, 
this  will  not  do. 

The  foregoing  considerations  show,  I  think,  conclu- 
sively, that  "  repent "  must  be  considered  by  itself  as 
resting  upon  the  ground  of  universal  obligation.  And, 
thus  considering  it,  let  us  now  take  up  the  phrase,  "For 
the  remission  of  sins."  This,  I  have  said,  was  given  by 
Peter  as  a  reason  why  they  should  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ.  As  they  had  denied  Jesus  before 
Pilate,  when  he  put  to  them  that  significant  interrogatory, 
'•Shall  I  crucify  your  king?"  by  saying:  "We  have  no 
king  but  Cassar ;"  and  when  he  gave  them  the  alterna- 
tive of  Christ  or  Barabbas,  they  rejected  him  and  chose 
the  murderer,  it  was  now  their  duty  to  acknowledge  his 
sovereignty.  God  had  made  him  both  Lord  and  Christ, 
that  unto  him  every  knee  should  bow  ;  and  now  to  him 
they  must  bow.  But  they  must  do  it  not  only  because 
of  his  authority,  but  also  by  way  of  acknowledging  the 
great  benefits  they  were  to  derive  through  him.  One  of 
these  great  benefits  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins  :  "  In  whom 
we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins." — Col.  i:   14.     This  was  the  consideration 


30G  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OE 

mentioned  by  Paul  to  the  Corintliians,  in  his  reproof  of 
them  for  their  divisions;  "  AVas  Paul  crucified  for  you? 
Or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ?"  0  how 
closely  should  we  cling  to  Jesus  Christ  in  view  of  the 
fact  he  was  crucified  for  us  !  Should  not  his  dying  love 
constrain  us  to  move  in  swift  obedience  to  all  his  com- 
mands ! 

Now,  as  these  Jews  were  assured  of  pardon  through 
Jesus  Christ,  as  having  been  exalted  a  Prince  and  Savior 
to  give  repentance  and  remission,  they  should,  by  a  sub- 
mission to  baptism,  acknowledge  it,  and  declare  their 
hope  and  faith  in  it.  And  this  I  deem  the  force  of  ft; 
to  be.  When  £15  is  connected  with  an  individual  or  per- 
son to  whom  the  action  of  baptism  has  respect,  it  is  ex- 
pressive of  the  faith  of  the  baptized  in  that  person,  and 
of  his  subjection  to  hira.  And  when  it  is  connected 
with  a  doctrine  or  fact,  it  is  expressive  of  the  faith  of  the 
baptized  in  that  fact  or  doctrine  and  his  reception  of  it. 
Let  us  test  the  truth  of  these  remarks  by  examples  : 

Matthew  xxvili :  19:  "Baptizing  them  (sij)  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Now,  what  is  the  force  of  »j  here?  Does  it 
not  indicate  that  the  party  thus  baptized  does  by  his 
baptism  declare  his  faith  in  these  Divine  persons  and  his 
subjection  to  them  ?  And  when  it  is  said  of  the  Samar- 
itans, (Acts  viii :  16,)  that  they  were  baptized  (jij)  Into 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  is  it  not  meant  that  they, 
by  their  baptism,  declared  their  faith  in  him,  and  tlieir 
subjection  to  him?  And  when  it  is  said,  (1  Corinthians 
X  :  1,  2,)  that  "all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and 
all  passed  through  the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  (fij) 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;"  does  it  not 
mean  that  what  they  then  did,  which  is  called  their  bap- 
tisms, was  expressive  of  their  faith  in,  and  subjection  to. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  307 

Moses  as  their  commander  and  leader?  So  true  is  it, 
therefore,  that  so  many  of  us  as  have  been  baptized  (ft?) 
into  Christ,  ha.\e  put  on  Christ,  (Gral.  iii :  27.) 

Of  facts  and  doctrines  we  have  the  following  examples: 
"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  (fti,-)  into  his  death?  There- 
fore we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  (ft?)  into  death." 
— Rom.  vi  :  3,  4.  Our  faith  is  that  Christ  iJvd  for  our 
sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  he  was  buried, 
and  that  he  arose  again  the  third  day,  according  to  the 
Scriptures.  "Well,  all  this  we  profess  and  declare  in  bap- 
tism. We  also  acknowledge  ourselves  to  be  dead  unto 
sin.  This  we  also  acknowledge  in  our  baptism.  And 
this  is  the  force  of  n^  in  these  passages. 

Another  example  is  found  in  Acts  xix :  3  :  "  Unto  (fif) 
what  then  were  ye  baptized  ?  And  they  said,  (ftj) 
Unto  John's  baptism?"  The  persons  addressed  here 
were  the  twelve  disciples  whom  Paul  found  at  Ephesus, 
and  unto  whom  he  said:  "Have  ye  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  since  ye  believed?'  Their  answer  to  him  was, 
"  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any 
Holy  Ghost."  This  shows  the  meaning  of  Pauls  ques- 
tion, '-Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized?"  Paul  in- 
stantly inferred  from  their  answer  that  there  must  be 
some  defect  in  their  baptism.  They  could  not  have  been 
baptized  aright  if  they  were  the  victims  of  such  igno- 
rance. If  they  had  been  baptized  into  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  the  third  adorable  person  in  the  godhead,  of  course 
they  would  have  had  some  knowledge  of  him.  They 
could  not  declare  their  faith  in,  and  subjection  to,  a  per- 
son whom  they  did  not  know.  Their  answer,  "  Unto 
John's  baptism,"  means  that  their  baptism  was  express- 
ive of  their  faith  in  the  doctrines  inculcated  by  John, 
and  their  subjection  to  the  obligations  his  baptism  im- 


308  AN   EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

posed,  the  chief  of  which  was,  "  that  they  should  believe 
on  him  who  should  come  after"  John.  So  here,  in  our 
text :  "  Jjet  every  one  of  you  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  («tj)  for  the  remission  of  sins."  As  Peter 
preached  to  these  Jews  remission  of  sins  through  J^esus 
Christ,  in  opposition  to  their  former  notions  of  justifica- 
tion by  the  law  of  Moses,  (compare  Acts  xiii :  38,  39,) 
and  they  cordially  embraced  this  doctrine — gladly  re- 
ceived his  word — he  would  have  them  declare  it  in  the 
overt  act  of  baptism.  As  this  is  the  force  of  n.^  in  such 
connection,  it  touches  not  the  question  whether  these 
persons  received  the  remission  of  sins  before  or  a/ler  bap- 
tism. It  simply  teaches  that  they,  by  their  baptism  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  declared  their  faith  in  the  doc- 
trine of  remission  through  him,  and  recognized  it  as  the 
great  blessing  coming  to  them  through  him. 

Plere  I  must  notice  Mr.  Lard's  unfairness,  (I  do  not 
know  what  else  to  call  it,)  in  arraying  before  his  readers 
ten  examples  of  n;  in  the  sense  of  "  in  order  to,"  for  the 
purpose  of  forcing  upon  them  the  acceptance  of  his  in- 
terpretation of  Bi;  in  this  passage.  He  has  given  examples 
which  are  not  parallel :  for  haptism  is  not  in  one  of  them. 
Let  us  take  parallel  examples  and  try  his  rendering,  and 
see  how  it  looks  : 

1.  Matthew  iii:  11:  "I  indeed  baptize  you  ftj  (i/i  orrfcr 
/o)  repentance."     Will  that  do? 

2.  Matthew  xxviii :  19  :  "  Baptizing  them  n^  (in  order 
to')  the  name  of  the  Father,"  etc.     Will  you  have  that? 

3.  Acts  viii :  16:  "Only  they  were  baptized  jij  (in 
order  toy  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."     Does  that  suit? 

4.  Romans  vi :  3,  4:  "Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of 
us  as  were  baptized  si^  (in  order  to)  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  ftj  (in  order  to)  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  ai*e 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  ni  (in  order  to)  death." 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  309 

5.  1  Corinthians  x:  2:  All  our  fathers  "  were  baptized 
£tj  (m  order  /o)  Moses." 

6.  Acts  six :  3 :  "  We  are  baptized  ttj  (m  order  to) 
John's  baptism." 

7.  Verse  5  :  "  When  they  heard  this  they  were  bap- 
tized ftj  (in  order  (o)  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

8.  1.  Corinthians  i:  13:  "Were  ye  baptized  ctj  (m 
order  to')  the  name  of  Paul?" 

9.  Verse  15  :  "  Lest  any  should  say  that  I  had  bap- 
tized £t,j  (I'rt  order  to)  my  own  name." 

10.  Gralatians  iii :  27  :  "  For  as  many  as  have  been 
baptized  ft?  (in  order  to)  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." 

These  are  all  the  examples  where  baptism  and  mj  are 
in  similar  connection  to  that  in  the  passage  we  are  con- 
sidering, and  we  see  that  not  one  of  them  will  allow  si^  to 
be  rendered  in  order  to.  But,  as  before  remarked,  the 
force  of  U5  in  these  examples  is  to  show  what  the  recipient 
of  the  rite  declared  and  professed.  If  ft?  is  followed  by 
the  name  of  a  person,  then  the  baptized  declared  his  faith 
in  that  person,  and  his  subjection  to  him.  If  ft?  is  fol- 
lowed by  a  fact  or  doctrine,  then  the  recipient  of  the  rite 
declared  his  faith  in  that  fact  or  doctrine,  and  his  recep- 
tion of  it. 

Reader,  you  have  now  my  view  of  the  passage  in  Acts 
ii :  38,  before  you,  and  also  my  objections  to  Mr.  Lard's 
interpretation,  and  I  now  leave  it  with  you  to  decide 
whether  or  not  I  have  wrested  the  passage  from  him.  I 
have  clearly  shown  that  the  command  to  repent  and  the 
command  to  be  baptized  are  not  to  be  construed  together 
as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to  remission  of  sins,  be- 
cause they  have  not  the  same  nominative,  and  because 
repentance  is  never  commanded  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ.  I  have  also  clearly  shown  that  to  understand 
Peter  as  Mr.  Lard  docs,  is  to  make  him  contradict  him- 


310  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD'S    REVIEW   OF 

self,  and  to  make  him  utter  a  sentiment  in  conflict  with 
the  general  tenor  of  Scripture  on  the  subject  of  remission. 
T  pass  to  Mr.  Lard's  third  argument. 

§  12. — MR.  lard's  third  argument. 

"As  the  basis  of  our  third  argument,"  says  Mr.  Lard, 
"we  subjoin  the  following:  ^Aiid  now  why  tarriest  thou? 
arise,  and  be  hajJtized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord.' — Acts  xxii :  16." 

To  give  the  reader  the  full  benefit  of  Mr.  Lard's  view 
of  this  passage,  I  will  here  give  a  lengthy  quotation  from 
him  : 

"  That  the  expression  is  metaphorical  is  granted.  Sins 
are  not  tcasJied  away:  they  are  remitted.  LTpon  this  no 
controversy  can  arise.  But  what  is  there  in  the  expres- 
sion to  indicate  or  suggest  this?  The  term  rendered 
toash  away  is,  in  the  original,  a  strong  compound  verb, 
which  in  its  simple  form  denotes  to  wash  merely.  Here, 
however,  it  is  compounded  with  a  particle  which  signifies 
from,  denoting  the  separation  of  one  thing /ro?)i  another, 
and  which  has  its  force  represented  in  the  expression  by 
the  term  away.  Hence,  in  its  compound  form  the  verb 
signifies  not  to  wash  simply,  but  to  separate  one  thing 
from  another  by  washing.  It  implies  a  separation,  and 
expresses  how  it  is  effected. 

"  First,  then,  it  implies  a  separation  :  and  this  is  in- 
deed the  radical  conception  in  remission.  For  not  only 
does  the  term  remits,  in  its  underived  Latin  form,  as  well 
as  in  English,  signify  to  send  away,  send  from,  or  let  go, 
(in  which  evidently  the  conception  of  separation  is  es- 
sentially involved,)  but  such,  also,  is  the  exact  meaning 
of  the  Greek  word  which  remit  translates.  Indeed,  how 
one  thing  can  be  washed  away  from  another  without 
being  separated  from  it,  is  not  conceivable.     Hence,  we 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed,  311 

conclude  that  separation — i.  e.,  of  sins,  or  remission — is 
the  radical  conception  in  the  expression — the  thing  for 
■which  it  stands. 

"  Second :  but  not  only  does  the  word  imply  a  separa- 
tion, it  expresses  how  it  is  effected  :  namely,  by  a  wash- 
ing. Separation  is  its  radical,  unfigurative  meaning,  the 
thing  it  denotes  ;  and  the  metaphor  consists  in  this:  that 
the  separation  is  represented  as  effected  by,  or  depending 
on,  a  washing,  which,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  con- 
sisted in  being  baptized. 

''  But  this  view,  in  effect,  represents  Paul  as  being  com- 
manded to  be  baptized,  and  thereby  to  separate  himself 
from  his  sins.  Nor  can  the  view  be  deemed  far  from 
correct  when  it  is  remembered  that  artoxovsav  is  middle, 
and  is  hence  to  be  construed  as  having  this  force.  But 
how  is  it  that  a  person  can  separate  himself  from  his  sins 
when  in  reality  they  are  separated  from  him,  or  remitted, 
as  an  act  of  mercy,  by  our  heavenly  Father?  Clearly,  by 
complying  with  the  conditions,  and  in  this  way  alone,  on 
which  the  separation  depends. 

"  Since,  therefore,  the  conception  which  lies  at  the  very 
bottom  of  the  expression  in  hand  is  separation,  and  since 
this  is  the  radical  idea  in  remission,  we  conclude  that  the 
exact  and  full  force  of  the  passage  is :  Arise  and  be  bap- 
tized, and  thereby  separate  yourself  from  your  sins — put 
them  away ;  or,  (which  is  evidently  the  sense,)  Arise 
and  he  hapfized,  and  your  sins  shall  he  remitted." 

There  is  some  ingenuity  in  that  reasoning.  Still  there 
lurks  sophistry  there.  But  before  I  attempt  to  point  it 
out,  I  must  offer  what  are  to  me  inseparable  objections 
to  Mr.  Lard's  view  : 

1.  If  Mr.  Lard  has  given  a  correct  interpretation  to 
these  words  of  Ananias,  Paul  so  understood  him,  and  he 
must,  therefore,  have  understood  that,  as  it  was  needful 


312  AN   EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's    REVIEW    OF 

for  him  to  be  baptized  in  order  to  have  his  sins  remitted, 
so  was  it  needful  i'or  all  other  believers.  Taking  this 
view  of  the  subject,  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  the 
fact  that  in  all  his  writings  on  the  subject  of  justification, 
the  apostle  has  not  said  one  word  about  it.  Instead  of 
saying  anything  that  gives  the  least  hint  or  implication 
that  a  man  must  be  baptized  in  order  to  be  justified  or 
have  his  sins  remitted,  he  has  said  things  that  have 
brought  the  whole  Christian  world,  outside  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  and  Campbellite  Churches,  to  a  different  con- 
clusion. 

Reader,  can  you  imagine  that  the  man  who  wrote  what 
we  find  in  Romans  i :  16,  17  ;  iii :  21-31  :  iv  :  1,  16,  24; 
V  :  1,  2  ;  X  :  1-10 ;  Galatians  ii :  16  ;  iii :  8,  9,  11 ;  Ephe- 
sians  ii :  8,  9  ;  and  Philippians  iii :  8,  9,  could  agree  with 
Mr.  Lard?  Or  that  he  could  preach  as  he  did  in  Acts 
xiii :  38,  39?  Can  you  imagine  how  he  could  say,  Christ 
sent  him  not  to  baptize,  (1  Corinthians  i:  17,)  when  he 
sent  him  to  the  Gentiles  for  the  express  purpose  of  their 
obtaining  remission  of  sins?  (Acts  xxvi :  18.)  Can  you 
imagine  how  he  could  thank  God  that  he  had  baptized 
so  few?  Would  we  not  be  astounded  were  we  to  read 
that  Paul  thanked  God  that  he  had  caused  but  few  to  be- 
lieve? to  repent?  But  what  signify  belief  and  repentance 
without  baptism  ?  To  convert  men  to  the  faith,  and  bring 
them  to  repentance,  and  then  not  to  baptize  them,  is  to 
lay  the  foundation,  begin  the  edifice,  and  then  abandon 
it,  and  thus  make  it  a  monument  of  our  own  folly  !  The 
writing,  the  preaching,  and  the  conduct  of  Paul,  are  all 
inexplicable  if  he  understood  Ananias  as  Mr.  Lard  does. 
Jle  did  not  therefore  so  understand  Mm. 

2.  The  Bible  teaches  with  a  clearness  which  nothing 
but  criminal  blindness  can  fail  to  see,  that  it  is  the  blood 
of  Christ  which  really  cleanses  from  sin.     1  John  i:   7: 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  313 

"And  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanscfh  us  from 
all  sin."  Revelation  i:  5:  "Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and 
washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  oicn  hlood^  It  is  the  hlood  of 
Christ  that  cleanses  the  conscience  from  dead  ivories. — Heb. 
ix:  14.  Now,  as  the  blood  of  Christ  really  cleansed  the 
conscience  of  Paul  from  dead  works,  as  it  really  washed 
away  his  sins,  Ananias  did  not  mean  what  Mr.  Lard  says 
he  did.  Then  the  question  comes  up  what  did  he  mean  ? 
This  question  I  will  now  endeavor  to  answer. 

The  rite  of  baptism  is  a  significant  ordinance.  Its 
form  or  mode  is  significant,  and  the  element  in  which  it 
is  performed  is  also  significant.  The  mode  symbolizes 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  and  our  union 
with  him  in  them.  The  water  in  which  we  are  baptized 
is  symbolical  of  that  cleansing  from  sin  we  realize  from 
the  blood  of  Christ.  We  are  washed  from  our  sins  by 
the  blood  of  Christ  in  fact.  We  wash  away  our  sins  in 
baptism  in  form.  The  former  is  the  reality,  the  latter  is 
the  symbol.  Hence,  in  the  former  we  are  j^assivc,  in  the 
latter  we  are  active.  In  the  former  Christ  washes  us,  in 
the  latter  we  wash  ourselves. 

Perfectly  analogous  to  this  is  the  cleansing  of  the 
leper,  (Leviticus  iv :  1-8  :)  The  priest  was  required  to 
go  forth  out  of  the  camp  and  look  upon  the  leper,  and 
if  the  leprosy  was  healed  in  him,  then  the  priest  was  to 
take  two  birds,  cedar  wood,  scarlet,  hyssop,  etc.,  for  him 
that  ivas  to  be  cleansed.  After  all  this,  he  that  was 
to  be  cleansed,  was  required  to  wash  his  clothes,  and 
shave  off  all  his  hair,  and  wash  himself  in  water  that 
he  might  be  clean.  You  see,  then,  that  there  were  in 
his  case  a  real  cleansing  and  a  formal  cleansing.  God 
did  the  former,  and  the  leper  did  the  latter.  We  have  a 
striking  example  in  Mark  i:  40—44:  ''  .\nd  there  came 
a  leper  to  him,  beseeching  him,  and  kneeling  down  to 
14 


314  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's  REVIEW    OP 

him,  and  saying  to  him,  If  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make 
me  clean.  And  Jesus,  moved  with  compassion,  put 
forth  his  hand,  and  touched  him,  and  saith  unto  him,  I 
will;  be  thou  clean.  And  as  soon  as  he  had  spoken, 
immediately  the  leprosy  departed  from  hhn,  and  he  was 
cleansed.  And  he  straitly  charged  him,  and  forthwith 
sent  him  away ;  and  saith  unto  him.  See  thou  say  noth- 
ing unto  any  man  ;  but  go  thy  way,  show  thyself  to  the 
priest,  a7id  offer  for  thy  cleansing  those  things  which  Moses 
commanded,  for  a  testimony  unto  them." 

Now,  here  Jesus  first  really  cleansed  this  leper,  and 
then,  afterward,  he  formally  cleansed  himself.  So  I  un- 
derstand the  language  of  Ananias  to  Paul:  "Arise  and 
be  baptized  and  icash  away  thy  sins."  As  the  leper  im- 
mersed himself,  and  washed  away  his  leprosy  after  it  was 
healed,  so  Paul  was  immersed  and  washed  away  his  sins 
after  they  were  pardoned. 

This  view  Mr.  Lard  tries  to  render  ridiculous  thus : 
"  But  let  us  suppose  his  (Jeter's)  theory  of  remission  to 
be  correct.  Paul's  sins,  then,  were  remitted  the  instant 
in  which  he  believed,  and  consequently  before  his  bap- 
tism. At  that  time,  therefore,  his  sins  had  no  existence 
whatever.  They  were  simply  a  nonentity.  Indeed,  he 
had  no  sins,  hence,  none  to  be  remitted,  none  to  be  washed 
away,  none  to  be  disposed  of  in  any  sense.  And  yet 
Ananias,  the  Lord's  special  messenger,  is  represented  as 
saying  to  him  :  'Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  aicay 
thy  sins!'  Did  Ananias,  we  ask  in  the  name  of  truth, 
command  Paul  to  be  baptized  and  wash  away  his  sins, 
when  absolutely  he  had  not  one  sin  remaining  ?  If  the 
theory  of  Mr.  Jeter  is  correct,  it  casts  over  the  deed  of 
Ananias  a  painful  suspicion ;  but  if  the  language  of 
Ananias  is  true,  it  brands  the  theory  of  Mr.  Jeter  as  a 
human  invention,  and  false." 


Jeter's  cai\ipbellism  exposed.  315 

In  order  to  expose  this  sopliistrj',  let  me  apply  it  to 
the  case  of  the  leper  cited  from  Mark  i  :  "But  let  us  sup- 
pose his  (Williams's)  theory  of  the  cleansing  of  the  leper 
to  be  correct.  This  leper's  leprosy,  then,  was  cleansed  the 
instant  in  which  Christ  said  unto  him,  'Be  thou  clean,' 
consequently  before  he  offered  for  his  cleansing.  At  that 
time,  therefore,  his  leprosy  had  no  existence  whatever.  It 
was  simply  a  nonentity.  Indeed,  he  had  nn  Icprosij,  hence 
none  to  be  cleansed  from,  none  to  be  washed  away,  none 
to  be  disposed  of  in  any  sense.  And  yet  Jesus,  the 
Lord's  own  Son,  is  represented  as  saying  to  him,  '  Go, 
offer  yb?-  thy  cleansing  T  Did  Jesus,  we  ask  in  the  name 
of  truth,  command  this  leper  to  offer  for  his  cleansing 
when  absolutely  he  had  not  the  least  taint  of  leprosy  re- 
maining? If  the  theory  of  Mr.  Williams  be  correct,  it 
casts  over  the  deed  of  Jesus  a  painful  suspicion  ;  but  if 
the  language  of  Jesus  be  true,  it  brands  the  theory  of 
Mr.  Williams  as  a  human  invention,  and  false." 

Reader,  is  not  the  analogy  complete?  Now,  as  there 
yet  remained  a  reason  why  the  leper  should  offer  for  his 
cleansing,  though  his  leprosy  was  really  healed,  so  there 
remained  a  reason  why  Paul  should  be  baptized  and 
wash  away  his  sins,  though  they  were  before  really  par- 
doned. 

I  promised  a  while  ago  to  point  out  the  sophistry  that 
lurks  in  Mr.  Lard's  reasoning  as  already  quoted.  Let 
me  now  redeem  that  promise. 

Mr.  Lard  admits  that  arto^ovaai  (wash  away)  is  middle, 
and,  hence,  represents  Paul  as  being  commanded  to  srp- 
araie  himself  from  his  sins.  Yet,  this  he  denies.  Sins, 
he  acknowledges,  are  remitted  as  an  act  of  mercy  by  our 
heavenly  Father.  Then,  does  it  not  follow  as  a  neces- 
sary conclusion,  "  wash  away  thy  sins "  can  not  mean 
rnnission  of  sins?     But  this  Mr.  Lard  saw  he  must  make 


316  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW  OF 

it  mean,  or  it  would  not  sustain  his  proposition.  Accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Lard's  own  showing,  "wash  away  thy  sins" 
can  not  mean  remission,  yet  he  makes  it  mean  that,  and 
builds  his  argument  upon  it  accordingly.  Is  not  that 
sophistry? 

I  feel  now  that  I  have  taken  this  text,  also,  from  Mr. 
Lard.  It  does  not  sustain  his  proposition.  It  is  not 
against  mine. 

§  13. — MR.  lard's  fourth  argument. 

"  The  passage  on  which  we  make  our  fourth  argu- 
ment," says  Mr.  Lard,  "  is  the  following:  '■According  to 
Ms  mercy  he  saved  its  hy  the  ica^Jiing  of  regeneration  and 
reneioing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' — Titus  iii :  5." 

Mr.  Lard  makes  this  passage  give  support  to  his  prop- 
osition by  making  the  phrase  "  washing  of  regenera- 
tion "  signify  baptism.  And  he  makes  it  signify  bap- 
tism, by  converting  the  noun  "regeneration"  into  an 
adjective.  Thus:  "  Regenerating  washing."  Reinter- 
prets the  word  "  saved  "  here  as  he  did  the  word  "  saved  " 
in  Mark  xvi :  IG,  to  signify  simply  "  remission  of  sins." 
His  words  are  : 

''But  to  what  is  reference  made  in  the  word  'saved?' 
or  to  what  does  it  properly  apply?  First,  it  is  clear  that 
it  refers  to  a  salvation  then  past,  then  completed  ;  hence 
the  apostle  could  speak  of  it  as  a  matter  of  history. 
Second,  that  it  is  the  salvation  which  occurred  when  Paul 
ceased  to  be  'foolish,  disobedient,  deceived,'  etc.  Third, 
that  it  is  the  salvation  which  depends  on  the  rcncicing  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  the  first  which  happens  after  it. 
But  what  is  this  but  the  remission  of  sins  ?  This,  then, 
we  conclude,  is  the  reference  in  the  word,  or  the  thing 
to  which  it  applies.  But  this  salvation  depended  not 
alone  on  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     For  he  saved 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed,  317 

us  by  the  loashing  0/  regeneration^  one  thing,  and  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Spirit,  another.  Hence,  the  washing 
of  regeneration — or  baptism — is  essential  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  or  is  one  of  the  conditions  on  which  it 
depends." 

Pity  that  Mr.  Lard  did  not  begin  his  quotation  at  the 
commencement  of  the  verse  and  continue  it  to  the  end 
of  the  sixth.  It  might  have  saved  him  from  the  error 
which  he  has  committed  in  making  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration mean  baptism.  Or  did  he  intentionally  garble 
the  apostle?  The  entire  passage  reads:  "iVbi  by  works 
of  righteousness  lohich  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his 
merci/  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  ivhich  he  shed  on  us  abund- 
antly, through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior."  Paul  here  tells 
what  God  does  not  save  us  by,  as  well  as  by  what  he  does 
save  us.  He  does  not  save  us  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  loe  have  done.  Then  he  does  not  save  us  by  bap- 
tism. It  is  a  work  of  righteousness,  (Matthew  iii :  15,) 
and  it  is  done  by  us. 

Again,  this  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which  he  does  save  us,  he  sheds  on 
ns  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ.  But  he  does  not 
shed  baptism  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ. 
Therefore  the  washing  of  regeneration  does  not  mean 
baptism.  The  inquiry  then  arises,  what  does  it  mean  ? 
Well,  this  inquiry  I  will  now  attempt  to  answer.  I  wish 
it,  however,  distinctly  understood  that  this  is  on  my  part 
a  gratuitous  work.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  show  that  the 
text  does  not  testify  for  Mr.  Lard.     This  I  have  done. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  there  are  two  things  which 
man  needs  in  order  to  salvation.  He  needs  to  be  cleansed 
from  sin,  and  he  needs  a  new  heart.  God  saves  him  by 
doing  both  for  him.     These  two  works  are  so   distinct 


318  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARd's    REVIEW    OF 

that,  they  can  not  be  expressed  by  one  and  the  same 
phrase.  Hence  they  are  distinctly  marked  and  expressed 
in  many  passages  of  Scripture.     I  will  cite  a  few  : 

Ezekiel  xxxvi :  25,  26:  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  :  from  all  your 
Jilthvnfss,  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A 
nexo  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  tvill  I 
put  within  you  :  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out 
of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh."  Here 
are  the  two  great  things  God  does  for  us  in  saving  us. 
He  cleanses  us  from  our  moral  pollution,  and  gives  us  a 
new  heart. 

Equally  explicit  are  the  specifications  in  the  new  cove- 
nant: 1st.  "  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and 
write  it  in  their  hearts."  2d.  "  I  will  forgive  their 
iniquity,  and  I  will  remember  their  sins  no  more." 
— Jer.  xxxi:  33,  34.  (Compare  Hebrews  viii:  10,  12; 
x:  16,17.) 

Now,  these  are  the  two  things  of  which  Paul  speaks 
in  Titus  iii :  5.  Our  cleansing  from  sin  he  calls  the 
"  washing  of  regeneration."  The  giving  of  a  new  heart, 
or  writing  the  law  upon  the  heart,  he  calls  the  "  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

When  David  prayed :  "  Wash  me  thoroughly  from 
my  iniquity,  and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin,"  what  else  did 
he  pray  for  but  the  washing  of  regeneration  ?  And 
when  he  prayed:  "Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God; 
and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me,"  what  else  did  he 
pray  for  but  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

As  I  shall  have  more  to  say  on  this  subject  by  and 
by,  I  shall  add  no  more  now.  I  claim  that  this  passage, 
like  the  three  already  considered,  yields  Mr.  Lard  no 
support,  and  is  in  no  way  antagonistic  to  my  proposition. 
I  pass  on  to  Mr.  Lard's  fifth  argument. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  319 

§  14. — MR.  lard's  fifth  argument. 

"Our  fifth  argument,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "is  suggested 
by  the  following :  '  Wherein  [the  ark]  few,  that  is,  eight 
souls,  were  saved  hy  water.  The  like  figure  whereunto,  even 
baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us — not  the  putting  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  to 
u-ard  God:— I  Peter  iii :  20,  21." 

I  feel  that  I  have  a  right  to  complain  of  Mr.  Lard's 
manner  of  quoting  this  text.  He  has  destroyed  the  pa- 
renthesis there  is  in  it,  and  left  out  a  very  important 
clause.  Why  he  has  done  so  is  known  to  himself  and 
the  great  Searcher  of  hearts.  I  am  willing  to  extend  to 
him  that  charity  that  thinks  no  evil. 

The  text,  as  it  really  is  in  Peter,  presents  greater  dif- 
ficulties in  his  way  of  making  it  favor  his  proposition, 
than  it  does  as  quoted  at  the  head  of  his  argument. 

Here  it  is  as  found  in  Peter:  "  Wherein  few,  that  is, 
eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  lohereunto, 
even  baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us,  (iiot  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.'"  This 
last  clause,  which  Mr.  Lard  has  entirely  omitted,  is,  as 
we  shall  after  a  while  see,  very  important  in  explaining 
the  passage. 

But  Mr.  Lard  finds  it  difficult  to  manage  it  even  as  it 
stands  at  the  head  of  his  argument.  He  says :  "  This 
passage,  (so  exceedingly  obscure  in  the  form  here  cited,) 
is  susceptible  of  a  much  more  intelligible  rendering,  thus  : 
In  tchich  (ark)  a  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  by 
water,  which  also  now  saves  us  in  its  antitype  baptism, . 
which  consists  not  in  putting  away  fleshly  impurity,  but  in 
seeking  a  good  conscience  in  God." 

I  think  I  may  safely  say  that  if  the  passage,  as  rcn- 


320  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

dered  iu  the  coiinnoii  version,  is  "obscure,"  this  trans- 
lation of  Mr.  Lard's  makes  obscurity  more  obscure.  To 
what  does  the  last  "  which  "  in  his  translation  refer  as  its 
antecedent?  Does  it  refer  to  "baptism?"  If  so,  it 
makes  baptism  to  "  consist  "  in  "  seching  a  good  conscience 
in  (yod.""  But  does  baptism  consist  in  that?  No;  it 
consists  iu  immersion.  Well,  does  it  refer  to  salvation? 
"V/bich  salvation  consists  in  seeking  a  good  conscience 
in  Gud."  If  so,  it  gives  a  strange  definition  of  salvation. 
If  salvation  consists  in  seeking  a  good  conscience  in  God, 
we  had  better  neyev  find  it,  because  the  moment  we  find 
it  we  lose  our  salvation  ! 

But  add  the  omitted  clause  and  then  see  how  his  trans- 
lation will  look.  See  if  there  is  transparency  about  it. 
Rather  see  if  there  is  not  absurdity  about  it :  "/?*.  which 
(ark)  yi'tw,  that  is,  eight  souls,  loere  saved  bj/  water,  lohich 
also  noio  saves  vs  in  its  antitype,  baptism,  lohich  consists 
not  in  putting  uiva//  fieshly  imp^trity,  but  in  seeking  a  good 
conscience  iio  God,  by  the  re.surrection  of  Jesus  Christy 

Now,  reader,  you  can  see  what  havoc  has  been  done 
to  the  text  by  Mr.  Lard.  Peter  tells  us  baptism  saves 
us  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  3'ou  will  see 
by  reading  the  passage  without  the  parenthesis.  But 
Mr.  Lard  makes  him  say  baptism  saves  us — or  rather  the 
water  in  baptism  saves  us — without  telling  us  hoic.  He 
makes  him  omit  this  and  give  us  in  lieu  of  it  that  in 
which  baptism  cf>nsists.  Never  was  a  text  more  tortured. 
I  think  it  will  be  a  martyr  before  it  will  testify  for  Mr. 
Lard. 

But  let  us  see  how  Mr.  Lard  argues  the  case  after 
putting  his  witness  to  the  torture  and  getting  all  he  can 
out  of  him.     He  says: 

"The  ground  on  which  it  (argument)  rests,  is  asserted 
in  the  common  version,  namely  :  '  Baptism  docs  also  now 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  321 

save  Its.'  From  this  it  is  clear  that  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  baptism  saves  us,  or  a  salvation  which  depends  on, 
or  is  effected  in  and  by  baptism.  The  question  is  :  What 
is  it,  or  in  what  does  it  consist?  First,  it  can  not  be  sal- 
vation in  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  for  it  is  limited 
to  baptism.  Second,  it  is  not,  be  it  what  it  may,  a  par- 
tial, but  a  complete  salvation  ;  for  baptism  '  now  saves 
us  !'  Hence,  previously  to  baptism  it  does  not  exist : 
subsequently  it  does  ;  but  without  baptism  it  can  not 
exist.  What,  now,  is  the  safest  and  fairest  method  of 
ascertaining  in  what  it  consists,  or,  since  the  passage  as- 
serts the  fact  that  baptism  saves  us,  how  shall  we  determ- 
ine in  what  sense  ? 

"  Clearly,  the  best  method  of  obtaining  a  correct  reply 
to  this  question  is,  to  ascertain  in  what  sense  the  word 
saved  is  used  when  used  in  connection  with  baptism,  or 
what  is  therein  accomplished  to  which  the  word  is  appli- 
cable. '  Happily,  this  is  an  easy  task ;  he  that  heUeveth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved.'  '  Arise  and  be  baptized  and 
wash  away  thy  sins.'  Jointly,  these  passages  determine, 
definitely  and  conclusively,  that  the  word  '  saved,'  when 
used  in  connection  with  baptism,  is  used  to  denote  re- 
mis^sion  of  sins  ;  and  whatever  meaning  it  certainly  has 
in  these  passages,  it  certainly  has  in  every  other  precisely 
similar  passage,  and,  consequently,  in  the  present  one. 
Hence,  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us,  because  therein 
our  sins  arc  remitted.  Of  the  truth  of  this  little  doubt 
can  remain,  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  same  apostle 
on  whose  language  we  are  now  commenting,  commanded 
an  audience  to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  order  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  Hence,  it  may  with  great  propriety  be 
represented  that  baptism  consists  in  seeking  a  conscience 
freed  from  sin." 

Reader,  you  sec  that  in  all  the  above  not  one  word  is 


322  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's   REVIEAV    OP 

said  about  "  6_y  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  No: 
baptism  must  not  save  us  h)/  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  must  save  us,  because  it  is  "  t h.  order  to 
the  remission  of  sins  !"  That  which  baptism  saves  us  hy, 
according  to  Peter,  is  not  that  which  baptism  saves  us 
by  according  to  Mr.  Lard.  Mr.  Lard,  you  need  not  try 
to  gag  Peter,  nor  to  put  words  in  his  mouth  he  never 
uttered.  He  will  speak  out.  and  we  will  hear  him  for 
ourselves. 

1.  In  explaining  this  passage,  the  first  thing  I  notice 
is,  that  it  contains  an  analog^/.  Noah  and  his  family  were 
saved  in  the  ark  by  water;  and  as  the  ark  saved  them 
bi/  water,  so  baptism  saves  us  %  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.     This  is  the  analogy. 

2.  Noah's  salvation  in  the  ark  was  a  figure  or  type ; 
so  baptism  is  a  figure  or  type,  therefore  called  a  "  like 
figure." 

These  two  facts  are  the  key  to  let  us  into  the  meaning 
of  the  passage. 

But  perhaps  I  had  better  prove  the  above  statements 
before  I  proceed.  Was  Noah's  salvation  in  the  ark  a 
figure?  It  certainly  was  or  it  could  not  have  any  other 
figure  to  resemble  it.  A  figure  can  not  be  like  that  which 
is  no  figure.  Hence  the  term  "like  figure,"  (Grr.  avtirv- 
rtov.)  Well,  is  baptism  a  figure  ?  It  must  be,  or  it  would 
not  be  like  the  other  figure.  The  Greek  word  used  here 
implies  tico  figures  alike  in  their  signification.  It  is  not 
faithfully  translated  by  our  word  antitijpe.  This  word 
signifies  not  the  type,  but  that  which  is  typified.  This 
the  Greek  word  does  not  signify.  It  is  used  in  another 
place;  let  us  go  to  that  and  we  will  get  some  light. 
Hebrews  ix :  24 :  "  For  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the 
holy  places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of 
the  true."     The  Greek  here  is  the  same.     Now,  every 


Jeter's  campbet.lism  exposed.  323 

one  can  see  that  here  the  word  can  not  have  the  sense  of 
"  antitype."  For  surely  no  one  can  suppose  that  the 
holy  places  made  with  hands  are  the  antitype  of  heaven  ! 
No  :  the  idea,  I  take  it,  is  this  :  God  gave  Moses  the 
pattern  of  these  holy  places,  in  the  Mount,  and  he  made 
these  holy  places  like  them.  Now,  these  were  patterns 
of  the  heavenly  things.  So  were  these.  They  were,  then, 
"  like  figures,"  i.  e.,  figures  of  the  same  things.  "  Like 
figure,"  then,  is  a  good  translation.     "Antitype"  is  not. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  inquire  of  what  Noah's  salva- 
tion in  the  ark  is  a  figure  ?  It  is  a  figure  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ,  and  salvation  through  him.  Paul 
says:  "By  faith  Noah,  being  warned  of  Grod  of  things 
not  seen  as  yet,  moved  with  fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the 
saving  of  his  house ;  by  the  which  he  condemned  the 
world,  and  became  heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is  by 
faith." — Heb.  xi :  7.  We  all  know  what  this  salvation 
is.  We  know  what  lies  at  its  foundation,  to-wit :  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  Noah's 
faith  looked  through  his  temporal  salvation  in  the  ark 
to  that  spiritual  salvation  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  him 
who  was  delivered  for  our  ofi"enses,  and  raised  again  for 
our  justification. 

Here,  then,  you  see  that  of  which  Noah's  salvation  was 
typical.  Well,  baptism  is  typical  of  the  same  thing. 
Need  I  prove  this?  We  need  no  other  passage  than  the 
one  found  in  Romans  vi :  3-5  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been 
planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be 
also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.'''     The  word  ren- 


324  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

dered  "  likeness  "  here  means  image  or  similitude.  See 
the  following  examples  :  Romans  i :  23  :  "Into  an  image 
made  like  to  corruptible  man,"  etc.  Romans  v:  14: 
"After  the  simiUtade  of  Adam's  transgression,"  etc. 
Romans  viii :  3:  "God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  like- 
ness  of  sinful  flesh,"  etc.  Philippians  ii :  7  :  "  Was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  men." 

Our  descent  into  the  waters  of  baptism  implies  our 
previous  death  to  sin,  so  Christ's  descent  into  the  grave 
implied  his  previous  death  for  sin ;  therefore  the  former 
is  in  the  likeness  of  the  latter. 

Our  rising  again  from  the  waters  of  baptism  to  walk 
in  newness  of  life,  is  like  our  Savior's  rising  from  the 
grave  to  live  unto  Grod. 

l^ow,  then,  we  ai'e  prepared  to  understand  Peter.  Let 
me  again  quote  the  text,  leaving  out  the  parenthesis  : 
"  When  once  the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the 
days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  preparing,  wherein  few, 
that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure 
whereunto,  even  baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us,  by  the 
resui'rection  of  Jesus  Christ."  As  Noah's  entrance  into 
the  ark  out  of  the  old  world  typified  Christ's  passage  out 
of  this  world  into  the  grave,  and  as  Noah's  emergence 
from  the  ark  into  the  new  world  typified  Christ's  emer- 
gence from  the  tomb  to  die  no  more,  it  presented  to  his 
mind  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith,  and  he  em- 
braced it. 

And  so  baptism,  in  its  figurative  significancy,  pre- 
senting the  same  things  to  our  faith,  contributes  to  our 
salvation.  It  saves  us  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
i.  e.,  it  is  a  striking  figure  of  our  salvation  by  his  resur- 
rection. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  is  so  fundamental  that 
everything  else  without  it  is  nugatory  and  vain.     "  If 


JETER  S   CAMPBELLISM    EXPOSED.  325 

Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain,  our  preaching  is 
also  vain,  and  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins."  Yea,  more  even, 
"  they  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished." 
We  can  not  have  the  faith  which  saves  unless  we  believe 
in  our  hearts  that  God  hath  raised  Jesus  from  the 
dead.  And  whoever  looks  on  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
sees  an  imperishable  symbolic  monument  of  this  great 
truth.  I  can  not  see  the  mystery  of  which  some  men 
speak,  in  this  passage  from  Peter. 

But  how  about  the  parenthesis?  Well,  it  sheds  light 
also  on  the  subject.  A  parenthesis  is  generally  used  for 
this  purpose.  As  Peter  had  said  baptism  saves  us,  he 
thought  it  proper  to  explain.  It  saves,  he  tells  us,  not 
because  it  is  a  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh',  but 
because  it  is  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God.  The  '■  filth  of  the  flesh  "  here  refers  to  ceremonial 
defilements.  Peter  was  writing  to  Jticish  Christians, 
(strangers  scattered  abroad — 1  Peter  i,)  persons,  there- 
fore, who  were  accustomed  to  such  defilements,  and  who 
laid  considerable  stress  upon  them  as  prejudicial  to  their 
salvation  ;  hence,  as  baptism  was,  like  their  bathings 
under  the  law,  an  immersion  in  water,  they  were  liable 
to  mistake  it  as  a  ceremonial  purification — a  putting 
away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh ;  but  Peter  tells  them  it  is 
not  that,  but  it  is  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  to- 
ward God. 

The  word  rendered  "  answer,"  Mr.  Lard  renders 
"  seeking."  For  this  rendering  I  have  seen  but  one 
authority.  That  authority  is  Alexander  Campbell!  If 
baptism  is  the  seeking  of  a  good  conscience,  what  kind 
of  a  conscience  does  the  subject  have  before  he  is  bap- 
tized ?  I  read  in  the  Bible  of  a  seared  conscience,  (1 
Tim.  iv:  2;)  and  a  f7(^/??c(/ conscience,  (Titus  i :  15;)  and 
an  evil  conscience,  (Heb.  x:  22  ;)  and  a  good  conscience, 


326  AN    EXAMINATION   OF    LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

(1  Tim.  X :  5.)  Now,  if  the  candidate  for  baptism  has  not 
this  good  conscience  when  he  applies  for  the  ordinance, 
what  kind  of  a  conscience  has  he  ?  It  is  evident  that, 
according  to  Mr.  Lard,  he  has  not  a  good  conscience,  or 
he  would  not  come  seeking  one. 

I  suppose  Mr.  Lard,  like  Mr.  Campbell,  thinks  :  "And 
to  him  that  made  the  washing  of  clay  from  the  eyes,  the 
washing  away  of  blindness,  it  is  competent  to  make  the 
immersion  of  the  body  in  water  eflicacious  to  the  wash- 
ing away  of  sin  from  the  conscience.'"  And  thus  he  makes 
Peter  to  say :  "  Immersion  saves  us,  not  by  cleansing  the 
body  from  its  filth,  but  the  conscience  from  its  guilt."  — 
Christian  Restitutions,  p.  221.  But  Peter  never  said  such 
a  thing  in  all  his  life.  According  to  Mr.  Lard  and  Mr. 
Campbell,  Peter's  parenthesis  ought  to  read  :  "  Not  the 
putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  putting  away 
filth  from  the  conscience."  But  Peter  has  not  said  this, 
and  had  he  said  it,  he  would  have  contradicted  Paul :  for 
Paul  tells  us,  the  blood  of  Christ,  not  baptism,  purges  the 
conscience  from  dead  works. 

But  what  does  Mr.  Lard  say  in  justification  of  "  seek- 
ing" as  a  translation  of  irtipuityjfxa?  He  says:  "First, 
there  is  a  necessity  for  it."  No  doubt  of  it!  It  would 
be  ruinous  to  Mr.  Lard's  proposition  to  allow  the  peni- 
tent believer  to  have  a  good  conscience  before  he  goes 
into  the  water!  But  he  continues:  "For  the  passage, 
as  it  stands  in  the  common  version,  conveys  no  intelli- 
gible meaning  whatever  ;  indeed,  it  is  simply  a  jumble  of 
words  without  meaning."  Why  did  he. not  add,  "to  a 
Campbellite  mind?"  To  me  it  is  most  intelligible,  and 
conveys  a  very  important  meaning,  which  I  will  give  pres- 
ently. Mr.  Lard  continues:  "Second.  It  agrees  better 
with  the  sense  of  the  original  term."  This  is  unsupported 
assertion. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  327 

I  have  before  me  five  lexicons.  The  following  are 
their  definitions : 

1.  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lexicon:  "  E7tEptor»;,aa,  a  ques- 
tion." 

2.  Donegan's  :  "ErtEpcorjy^a,  a  question  ;  interrogation." 

3.  Groves' :  ^^ETiiftuifriixa,  a  question  ;  inquiry;  a  requi- 
sition ;  demand ;  an  answer  or  reply  agreeing  to  the 
demand;  an  engagement ;  undertaking." 

4.  Robinson's  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament:  "  Ertt  ptoT"/j,ua, 
a  question  ;  inquiry.  In  N.  T.  spoken  of  a  question  put 
to  a  convert  in  baptism,  or  rather  of  the  whole  process 
of  question  and  answer,  i.  c,  by  implication,  examination, 
profession." 

5.  Greenfield' s  Lexicon  of  the  Neio  Testament :  "  Ertfpw- 
T-ij^uo,  an  interrogation ;  question.  In  N.  T.,  answer, 
promise,  engagement,  profession. — 1  Peter  iii:  21." 

Now,  reader,  are  we  not  prepared  to  see  the  meaning 
of  the  apostle  ?  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  in  which  cer- 
tain obligations  are  assumed  by  the  baptized.  We  have 
been  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death,  that,  like 
as  he  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  loe  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  And  now, 
this  question  comes  up  before  the  mind  of  the  believer : 
Will  you,  by  being  "baptized  into  Christ" — "into  his 
death,"  oblige  yourself  to  walk  in  newness  of  life?" 
Well,  he,  having  a  "good  conscience  toward  Grod,"  a 
conscience  '■^purged  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living 
God,"  answers,  "I  will."  Baptism,  then,  is,  to  him,  an 
act  by  which  he  responds  to  the  Divine  claims,  engages 
to  lead  a  new  life,  pi-ofesses  a  good  conscience  toward 
God.  Baptism,  then,  according  to  Peter,  saves  us  in 
figure.,  because  it  is,  like  Noah's  salvation  in  the  ark, 
typical  of  that  which  saves,  to-wit :  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.     Secondly,  because  it  is  the 


328  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OF 

answer,  i,  e.,  the  engagement  and  profession  of  a  good  con- 
science toward.  God. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  here,  that  this  is,  perhaps,  the 
reason  why  baptism  is  to  be  performed  but  once,  and 
that  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Christian  life,  because, 
like  the  oath  of  allegiance,  its  obligations  cover  the  whole 
life.  Every  one  who,  with  a  good  conscience,  takes  upon 
him  the  sacred  rite,  ever  after  feels  its  obligations  fresh 
upon  him.  His  baptism  will  ever  furnish  him  a  reason 
and  a  motive  to  abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil,  and 
to  maintain  a  patient  continuance  in  well-doing,  while  he 
seeks  for  glory,  and  honor,  and  immortality  in  the  hope 
of  eternal  life. 

In  conclusion,  I  feel  that  I  am  authorized  to  say  that 
this  passage,  like  all  its  predecessors,  gives  no  support 
to  Mr.  Lard's  position,  and  it  offers  no  objection  to 
mine. 

§  15. — MR.  lard's  sixth  argument. 

"  The  passage,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "  on  which  we  base 
our  sixth  argument  is  this  :  '  Verily^  verily.,  1  say  unto  thee, 
Except  a  man  he  horn  of  water  and  of  (he  Sjyirif,  he  can 
not  enter  info  the  kingdom  of  God.' — John  iii ;  5." 

With  Mr.  Lard's  first  paragraph  I  fully  agree.  It  is 
this  :  "  This  passage  we  regard  as  presenting  us  with  a 
complete  view  of  the  new  birth — as  informing  us  in  what 
it  consists,  or  what  facts  constitute  it.  And  whenever 
the  subject  of  regeneration  is  spoken  of  we  wish  it  to  be 
distinctly  understood  that  the  present  passage  contains 
our  conception  of  it.  In  declaring,  that  '  except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  can  not  see  the  kingdom  of  God,'  the 
Savior  merely  propounds  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth 
generally,  in  a  statement  of  the  necessity  of  it.  But  in 
the  present  passage  he  states  definitely  in  what  the  new 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  329 

birth  consists,  reiterating  the  necessity  of  it.     The  former 
passage  propounds  the  doctrine,  the  latter  passage  ex 
plains  it.     That  to  be  born  again  is  to  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  does  not  admit  of  a  doubt." 

But  with  the  following  I  as  fully  disagree:  "The 
passage  was  intended,  when  spoken,  to  have  not  a  present^ 
hut.  a  prospective  hearing^  My  reason  for  disagreeing  I 
will  give  presently. 

I  wish  now  to  let  the  reader  know  how  Mr.  Lard 
presses  this  text  into  his  service.  He  understands 
"born  of  water"  to  mean  baptism.  He  understands 
"  born  of  the  Spirit,"  to  mean  "  begotten  "  of,  or  by,  the 
Spirit.  He  then  contends  that  a  man  must  be  begotten 
by  the  Spirit  and  born  of  water,  or  be  baptized  in  order 
to  be  born  again  and  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  or  the 
reign  of  favor,  where  the  remission  of  sins,  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  etc.,  etc.,  are  to  be  obtained  and  enjoyed. 

After  much  explanation  and  criticism,  and  twisting 
and  turning,  to  get  the  passage  fixed  up  to  his  notion,  he 
says  :  "  It  is  now  easy  to  complete  our  argument.  There 
are  but  two  kingdoms  on  earth  in  which  men  exist  :  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  Satan.  These 
kingdoms  are  separated  from  each  other  by  one  and  the 
same  line.  All  on  this  side  are  saints,  all  on  that  sin- 
ners;  and  all  are  on  that  side  until  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit :  then  all  thus  born  are  on  this.  We  can 
no  more  conceive  of  a  saint  in  the  kingdom  of  Satan, 
than  we  can  of  a  sinner  in  the  kingdom  of  God;  nor  can 
we  any  more  conceive  of  a  saint  without  his  being  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  than  we  can  of  a  sinner  who 
is.  The  instant  in  which  a  man's  sins  are  forgiven  he 
passes  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.  But  he  passes  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  the  instant  in  which  he  is  born  of  water 


330  AN    EXAMINATION    OF    LARd's    REVIEW    OP 

and  of  the  Spirit.  Hence,  in  that  instant,  his  sins  are 
forgiven. 

"  But  let  us  suppose  a  part  of  this  to  be  denied.  Let 
us  suppose  it  to  be  maintained  that  a  man,  though  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  might  still  be  in  the  kingdom 
of  Satan.  What  is  true  of  one  man  in  this  respect 
might  certainly  be  true  of  all.  Hence  all  men,  though 
born  again,  might  still  be  in  the  kingdom,  and  under  the 
dominion,  of  Satan." 

Clearly,  this  is  false. 

"  From  all  of  which  we  conclude  that  a  man's  sins  are 
remitted  the  instant  in  which  he  is  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  or,  inverting  the  expressions,  the  instant  in 
which,  being  begotten  by  the  Spirit,  he  is  immersed.'^ 

All  that  is  wanting  to  overthrow  this  argument  and 
conclusion  of  Mr.  Lard's,  is  to  give  a  just  exposition  of 
the  text  on  which  they  are  founded.  This  I  shall  now 
attempt  to  do. 

As  before  remarked,  I  agree  with  the  sentiments  uttered 
by  Mr.  Lard  in  his  first  paragraph.  In  the  third  verse, 
our  Savior  says  :  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  can 
not  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  At  this,  Nicodemus  is 
surprised,  and  misapprehending  its  meaning,  he  asks  : 
"How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old?  Can  he  enter 
the  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb  and  be  born?" 
Now,  all  that  follows  up  to  the  ninth  verse  is  an  answer 
to  these  questions,  and  of  course  contains  an  explanation 
of  that  which  gave  rise  to  them. 

The  fifth  verse  is  therefore  exegetical  of  the  third.  The 
Savior's  return  to  the  first  expression  confirms  this  view: 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh  ; 
and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit.     Marvel 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  331 

not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  he  horn  again.''  "  Born 
again,"  therefore,  states  the  doctrine ;  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit  explains  it.  So  far,  Mr.  Lard  and  I  are 
agreed.     But  now  we  part. 

If  Mr.  Lard's  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  passage  be 
correct,  the  explanation  was  just  as  great  a  puzzle  to  Nic- 
odemus,  and  needed  as  much  explanation  as  that  which 
was  explained.  Now,  I  hold  it  as  self-evident  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  meant  baptism  by  "  born  of  water,"  nor 
could  he  have  intended  a  "  prospective"  and  not  a  pres- 
ent application  of  what  he  said, /ro/ii  the  fact  that  he  teas 
giving  an  explanation. 

1.  Let  us  inquire  who  was  Jesus  Christ?  The  omniscient 
Prophet — the  true  Light  which  lighteth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world.  He,  therefore,  had  the  wisdom  to 
discern  the  cause  of  the  ignorance  of  Nicodemus,  and  to 
employ  the  best  means  for  its  removal.  But  was  it  better 
calculated  to  remove  his  ignorance  to  say  "  born  of  water," 
than  to  say  "be  baptized,"  if  he  meant  be  baptized? 
Had  Nicodemus  any  knowledge  of  baptism  by  virtue  of 
which  he  could  infer  it  from  this  phrase  ?  I  presume  not. 
But,  then,  if  Jesus  ^^oke  p>rospc(:tively ,  why  did  he  use  the 
present  tense  ?  "  Except  a  man  he  born  again,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
thee,  Except  a  man  he  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit. 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 

2.  Who  was  Nicodemus  ?  A  man  of  the  Pharisees,  a 
ruler  or  teacher  of  the  Jews.  And  could  the  Savior  pre- 
sume that  he  would  understand  his  explanation  if  he 
meant  what  Mr.  Lard  says  he  did  ?  Most  surely  not. 
Now,  an  explanation  which  the  party,  needing  it,  cannot, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  understand,  is  no  explana- 
tion at  all.  I  have  too  much  regard  for  both  the  icisdom 
and  henevolcnce  of  the   Savior  to   believe   that   he   jrave 


332  AN   EXAMINATION   OP    LARd's  REVIEW   OF 

Nieodemus  such  an  explanation  as  Mr.  Lard  says  lie 
did. 

3.  There  is  another  fiict  which  makes  me  reject  Mr. 
Lard's  view  of  this  subject.  It  is  this  :  After  the  expla- 
nation, Nieodemus  asked  :  "  How  can  these  things  be  ?" 
And  Jesus  answered  :  "  Art  thou  a  master  of  Israel  and 
knowest  not  these  things?^'  This  reply  of  the  Savior 
implies  a  reflection  upon  Nieodemus  for  his  igno- 
rance. Now,  was  this  reflection  deserved?  Was  it  just? 
It  evidently  was,  for  Jesus  gave  it.  He  will  cast  no 
undeserved,  unjust  reflection.  But  if  he  meant  what 
Mr.  Lard  says  he  did,  the  reflection  was  undeserved  and 
unjust. 

I  hold,  then,  that  the  Savior's  explanation  was  an  ex- 
planation to  Nieodemus;  one  which  he,  as  a  master  of 
Israel,  ought  to  have  understood,  and,  hence,  his  igno- 
rance was  censurable.  Therefore  it  has  been  mistaken  by 
Mr.  Lard. 

There  is  to  my  mind  one  more  objection  to  Mr.  Lard's 
view,  which  I  regard  as  inseparable.  It  is  this  :  If  his 
view  is  correct,  there  never  was  a  neio  birth,  or  such  a 
thing  as  one's  being  born  again  before  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost! Can  this  be  true  ?  If  true,  how  is  it  that  we  read 
in  John  i:  12,  13:  "But  as  many  as  received  him,  to 
them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  name  :  which  were  (in  the  past 
tense)  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God?"  Remember,  this 
was  he/ore  Pentecost. 

And  how  is  it  that  the  pious  in  all  ages  have  been 
called  the  sons  or  children  of  God  ?  Could  they  be 
children  of  God  without  being  born  of  him  ?  I  think 
not. 

I  am  now  prepared  to  explain  the  text.     The  follow- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  333 

ing  considerations  furnish  the  key  by  which  I  interpret 
it: 

1.  Born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  is  an  explanation 
of  born  again. 

2.  It  was  given  by  the  Savior  to  Nicodemus,  a  Phari- 
see, a  ruler  of  the  Jews,  or  master,  or  teacher  of  Israel. 

3.  It  was  therefore  an  explanation  adapted  to  him  as 
such,  which  he  ought  to  have  understood. 

4.  It  was  an  explanation,  therefore,  which  he  ought  to 
have  learned  and  understood  from  his  sources  of  inform- 
ation. 

5.  But  his  sources  of  information  were  the  writings  of 
Moses  and  the  prophets. 

6.  Hence,  to  them  we  must  go  to  learn  its  meaning. 
Well,  as  I  have  shown  already,  (see  what  I  have  said 

on  Titus  iii :  5,)  God,  in  saving  us,  does  two  things  for 
us :  he  gives  us  a  new  heart,  and  he  cleanses  us  from  sin. 
Now,  these  two  things  are  to  be  found  both  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Moses  and  the  prophets.  They  are  set  forth  in 
types  and  promises,  and  especially  in  the  new  covenant. 
Circumcision  was  typical  of  a  change  of  heart  correspond- 
ing to  the  birth  of  the  Spirit.  The  following  passages 
prove  this:  Deuteronomy  x:  16  :  "Circumcise  there- 
fore the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  and  be  no  more  stiff- 
necked."  Deuteronomy  xxx  :  6:  "And  the  Lord  thy 
God  will  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed, 
to  love  the  LoPiD  thi/  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all 
thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live." 

Are  not  these  passages  plain  ?  But  see  also  Jeremiah 
iv  :  4:-  "Circumcise  yourselves  to  the  Lord,  and  ta,kc 
away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart."  See  also  Jeremiah 
ix  :  26;   Leviticus  xxvi :  41 ;  Ezekiel  xliv  :  7. 

It  is  evident  that  the  apostle  Paul  understood  circum- 
cision as  typical  of  a  change  of  heart.     Hear  him  :■  "He 


334  AN   EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

is  not  a  Jew,  which  is  one  outioardJi/ ;  neither  is  thai 
circumcision,  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  :  but  he  is  a 
Jew  which  is  one  inwardly ;  and  circumcision  h  that  of 
the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter ;  whose  praise 
is  not  of  men,  but  of  God." — Rom.  ii :  28,  29.  Hence, 
he  tells  his  Philippian  brethren  that  they  "  are  the  cir- 
cumcision, which  loorship  God  in  the  Spirit,  and  rejoice 
in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the  Jiesh." — 
Phil,  iii :  3.  Hence,  also,  he  tells  us  that  saints  "are 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the 
circumcision  of  Christ." — Col.  ii  :   11. 

Not  only  is  a  change  of  heart  thus  set  forth  in  type, 
but  our  cleansing  from  sin  is  also  thus  set  forth.  All 
the  ceremonial  washings  under  the  law  were  typical  of 
our  moral  cleansing  from  the  pollution  of  sin,  particu- 
larly that  connected  with  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer. — 
Num.  xix  :  19.  This  Paul  teaches  us  in  Hebrew  ix  : 
13,  14  :  "  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh  :  how  much  more  shall  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered 
himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  (or  cleanse*)  your 
conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God."' 

The  prayer  of  David  in  the  fifty-first  psalm  plainly 
recognizes  these  two  ideas  :  "  Wash  me  thoroughly  from 
mine  iniquity,  and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin."  Again: 
'■•Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean  :  vxish  me, 
and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow."  This  is  one  idea. 
'''■Ci'eate  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God;  and  reneio  a  right 


*  The  word  rendered  "purge  "  is  nadapi^u,  rendered  elsewhere  in 
the  New  Testament  twenty-three  times  ''  cleanse,"  and  three  times 
"purify."     Compare  1  John  i:  7. 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  335 

spirit  within  me."  This  is  the  other  idea.  Here  is 
a  plain  exposition  of  "  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit." 

The  new  covenant,  as  I  have  already  said,  is  clearly 
expressive  of  these  two  ideas.  I  need  not,  however,  re- 
peat here  what  I  have  already  said  upon  it.  Nor  need  I 
again  refer  the  reader  to  Ezekiel  xxxvi :  25,  26.  I  have 
said  enough.  I  will  only  add  that  there  is  one  remarka- 
ble fact  which  may  not  have  arrested  the  attention  of  the 
reader,  which,  I  think,  strengthens,  if  that  were  possible, 
the  view  I  have  here  given.  It  is  this:  throughout  the 
New  Testament,  a  change  of  heart  is  always  ascribed  to 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  never  to  the  hlood  of  Christ ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin  is 
always  ascribed  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  never  to  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Now,  as  we  are  both  cleansed  from  sin  and  renewed  in 
the  spirit  of  our  minds,  and  as  these  are  effected  by  two 
distinct  causes,  the  blood  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
two  expressions  were  needful  to  set  them  forth.  They 
are  comprehended  in  "born  again,"  but  expressed  in 
*'  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit."  It  does  seem  to  me 
that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  this 
view,  when  all  that  I  have  said,  in  connection  with  that 
type,  and  promise,  and  prophecy,  and  the  new  covenant, 
is  duly  considered,  and  the  occasion,  the  Teacher,  and 
the  pupil,  are  taken  into  the  account.  A  man  is  born 
again  when  his  heart  is  circumcised,  and  his  conscience 
purged  from  dead  works.  A  man  is  born  again  when 
God  washes  him  thoroughly  from  his  iniquity,  and 
cleanses  him  from  his  sin  ;  and  creates  within  him  a 
clean  heart,  and  renews  within  him  a  right  spirit.  A 
man  is  born  again  when  (lod  writes  his  law  upon  his 
heart,   and   forgives   his   sins,   and    remembers    iniquity 


336  AN   EXAMINATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

against  him  no  more.     And  when  Grod  does  these  things 
for  a  man,  he  is  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit. 

And  now  I  claim  that  I  have  taken  this  text  also  from 
Mr.  Lard.  It  gives  his  proposition  no  support ;  it  oifers 
no  resistance  to  mine. 

§  16. — MR.  lard's  seventh  argument. 

"Our  seventh  argument,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "is  sug- 
gested by  the  following  :  '  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and 
gave  himself  for  it;  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it 
with  the  washing  of  loater  hy  the  word.' — Eph.  v  :  25,  26." 

This  text,  like  some  others  which  we  have  already  con- 
sidered, just  as  it  stands,  does  not  suit  Mr.  Lard.  He 
sees  that  the  "  washing  with  water  "  is  here  said  to  be 
hy  the  loord.  This  he  must  change.  Hence  he  says : 
"  That  the  phrase,  '  hy  the  word.^  is,  in  construing  the 
passage,  to  be  joined  with  the  verb  sanctify,  is  so  obvi- 
ously true,  that  nothing  need  be  urged  in  its  defense; 
the  proper  collocation  of  the  words  being :  Christ  also 
loved  the  Church,  and  gave  himself  for  it ;  that,  having 
cleansed  it  by  the  washing  of  water,  he  might  sanctify  it 
by  the  word." 

In  confirmation  of  this,  he  quotes  the  Savior's  prayer : 
''Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth;  thy  word  is  truth." 
— John  xvii :   17, 

In  condemnation  of  it,  why  did  he  not  quote  :  "  Now 
ye  are  clean  through  the  icord,  which  I  have  spoken  unto 
you  ?" — John  xv :  3.  And  why  did  he  not  quote  the 
words  of  Peter :  "  Seeing  ye  have  purified  (or  cleansed) 
your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth  through  the  Spirit?" — ■ 
1  Peter  i :  22. 

These  quotations,  I  presume,  were  not  relevant ! 

After  thus  changing  the  translation  witliout  any  au- 
thority, and  without  proof,  so  as  to  make  it  suit  his  pur- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  337 

pose,  Mr.  Lard  presses  it  into  his  service  in  the  following 
manner  : 

"  But  what  signifies  the  expression,  cleansed  it  hy  the 
washing  of  water?  This  question  can  be  best  answered, 
perhaps,  by  determining  separately  the  signification  of 
the  clauses  ivashing  of  water  and  cleansed. 

"  First,  then,  what  signifies  the  clause  loashing  of 
water?  If,  as  was  urged  in  the  preceding  section,  there 
is  any  confidence  to  be  reposed  in  the  learning  and  dis- 
crimination of  the  first  class  of  critics,  and  that,  too,  in 
a  ease  in  which  no  interested  motives  can  be  presumed  to 
have  swayed  their  judgments,  this  question  is  settled. 
The  clause  signifies  haptism.  True,  Mr.  Jeter  feigns  to 
think  its  import  doubtful,  but  why,  none  can  mistake. 
He  is  pledged  to  oppose,  right  or  wrong,  whatever  favors 
us  ;  hence,  the  more  irrefragable  our  proof,  the  more 
vehement  his  denial. 

"  That  the  term  water.,  or,  more  correctly, ^/te  water,  as 
it  is  in  the  original,  has  here  its  hard  Saxon  meaning,  is 
not  a  disputable  point.  Joining  to  this  word  washing, 
or,  better  still,  the  washing,  thereby  making  the  washing 
of  or  in  the  water,  or  the  water  in  which  the  Church  (the 
members  of  it)  has  been  washed,  can  any  one,  whose  soul 
is  not  steeped  in  error,  be  in  doubt  as  to  what  the  apostle 
means. 

"  There  is  but  one  rite  under  Christ  to  which  water  is 
absolutely,  in  all  cases,  essential,  and  to  which  all  who 
are  members  of  his  Church  have  submitted.  That  rite  is 
baptism.  Here,  however,  water  is  present — water  in 
which  the  Church  is  washed ;  hence,  since  the  Church 
comes  in  contact  with  water  in  no  rite  but  baptism,  bap- 
tism is,  or  rather,  of  necessity,  must  be,  what  the  apostle 
refers  to  when  he  says,  the  washing  of  loater. 

"Second.  But  what  signifies  the  term  cleansed?  We 
15 


338  AN    EXAMINATION    OP    LARd's   REVIEW    OF 

can  readily  understand  why  the  expression,  washing  of 
wafer,  should  have  suggested  it ;  but  the  question  is, 
What  does  it  mean  ? — a  question  which  we  think  is  not 
difficult  to  answer.  In  the  original,  both  the  verb  and 
its  derivatives  signify  to  cleanse  or  purify  generally. 
But  the  present  is  not  a  general  but  a  special  cleansing, 
— a  cleansing  limited  toperso?7s,  and  eflFected  t'n  (he  wash- 
ing of  toatcT.  Now,  in  what  special  sense  are  persons 
cleansed  in  the  washing  of  water?  Clearly,  they  are  not 
therein  cleansed  from  leprosy;  neither,  therein,  is  any 
error  corrected  or  vice  reformed.  Thrij  are  therein 
cleansed  from  sin.  'Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  ^oash 
away  thy  sins.'  '  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  in  order  to  the 
remission  of  sins'  These  passages  determine  most  con- 
clusively in  what  sense  a  person  is  cleansed  in  the  wash- 
ing of  water.  Three  times,  certainly,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  the  term  cleansing,  either  as  a  verb  or  noun, 
employed  to"express  a  cleansing  from  sin.  A  cleansing 
from  sin,  then,  is,  we  conclude,  precisely  what  is  effected 
in  the  washing  of  water." 

Here,  reader,  is  Mr.  Lard's  conclusion  fully  drawn. 
According  to  him,  the  Church  (or  members  of  it)  is 
cleansed,  that  is,  pardoned,  by  baptism,  and  afterward 
sanctified  by  the  word,  and  thus  fitted  for  final  present- 
ation to  Christ,  a  glorious  Church — holy,  and  without 
blemish.  Are  you  prepared  to  admit  his  conclusion  ?  I 
am  not,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  The  word  Church,  here,  is  to  be  taken  in  its  largest 
sense  as  embracing  all  the  saved.  It  comprehends  the 
many  who,  at  last,  shall  come  from  the  East  and  from 
the  West,  from  the  North  and  from  the  South,  and  sit 
down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom 
of  God.  It  looks  back  to  prophets  and  patriarchs.  It 
crosses  the  flood,  £|,nd  gathers  into  its  meaning  the  ante- 


JETEll'S   CAMPBELLI8M    EXPOSED.  339 

diluvian  saints.  It  then  goes  fbrward,  and  comprehends 
the  latest  convert  to  Christ  and  his  cause.  All  this  vast 
company  Christ  loved,  and  gave  himself  for;  all  this  vast 
company  he  will  sanctify  and  cleanse,  and  finally  pre- 
sent to  himself,  a  glorious  Church,  without  spot  or  blem- 
ish. 

But  if  Mr.  Lard's  exposition  be  true,  no  saint  who 
lived  before  Pentecost  will  be  included  in  this  glorious 
Church :  or,  if  included,  he  will  not  have  been  cleansed 
with  this  washing  of  water  ! 

2.  As  all  the  saved  are  embraced  within  the  meaning 
of  the  term  Church,  as  here  used,  and  as  all  are  sanc- 
tified and  cleansed  in  the  same  way,  and  by  the  same 
process,  baptism  can  not  be  meant,  because  a  large  pro- 
portion of  those  included  were  never  baptized. 

Then  the  inquiry  comes  up,  What  is  meant  by  this 
washing  of  water  by  the  word  f  The  following  passages 
of  Scripture  answer  this  question  : 

1.  Revelation  vii :  14:  "And  he  said  to  me,  These  are 
they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  have 
washed  their  rohes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  hlood  of 
the  Lamb." 

Here,  the  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand  sealed 
from  among  the  twelve  tribes  are  referred  to.  These 
will  compose  a  part  of  the  Church  of  which  Paul  speaks. 
^Yell,  in  the  laver  in  which  these  have  washed  their 
robes,  all  other  members  of  this  Church  will  have  washed 
theirs. 

That  laver  is  here  shown  to  be  the  blood  of  Christ,  not 
baptism. 

2.  Zechariah  xiii :  1  :  ''In  that  day  there  shall  be  a 
fountain  opened  to  the  house  of  David  and  to  the  inhab- 
itants of  Jerusalem  for  sin  and  for  un clean nesa." 

In  this  prophecy,  we  "  behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which 


340  AN   EXAsflNATION   OP   LARD's   REVIEW  OF 

taketli  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  This  fountain  was 
opened  in  his  blessed  side.  The  blood  and  water  which 
flowed  from  his  cleft  heart  form  the  element  which 
cleanses  from  sin.  In  this  fountain  we  wash  and  are 
clean. 

The  pious  Cowper  proved  himself  a  theologian  as  well 
as  a  poet  when  he  wrote  : 

"There  is  a  fountain  filled  -with  blood, 
Drawn  from  Iramanuel's  veins, 
And  sinners  plunged  beneath  that  flood 
Lose  all  their  guilty  stains." 

This  fountain  Christ  opened  for  all  his  Church:  in  it 
all  bathe,  and  by  it  all  are  cleansed  from  sin.  "  Unto 
him  that  loved  us  and  washed  i(S  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
blood,"  will  be  the  universal  song  of  the  glorified  Church, 
without  a  discord,  or  jar,  or  dissenting  voice. 

Reader,  need  I  multiply  quotations?  Read  for  your- 
self the  following:  Isaiah  iv  :  4  ;  Jeremiah  xxxiii :  8; 
Ezekiel  sxxvii :  23  ;  John  xiii :  8-10  ;  1  John  i :  7. 

I  will,  however,  give  the  reader  one  more  passage  anal- 
ogous to  the  one  we  are  considering,  and  to  which,  it  is  not 
improbable,  Paul  had  reference.  It  is  found  in  Ezekiel 
xvi :  3-14  inclusive.  Here  God  first  reminds  Israel  of 
their  humble  origin,  of  their  pitiable  condition  in  their 
infancy,  and  of  their  pollution.  Second,  he  tells  them 
of  his  love  and  compassion  for  them,  and  the  great  bene- 
fits he  had  conferred  upon  them,  and  of  their  beauty  and 
renown  in  consequence. 

In  this  description  he  uses  the  following  language  : 
"  Now  when  I  passed  by  thee,  and  looked  upon  thee,  be- 
liold,  thy  time  v;as  the  time  of  love  ;  and  I  spread  my  skirt 
over  thee,  and  covered  thy  nakedness:  yea,  I  sware  unto 
thee,  and  entered   into  a  covenant  with  thee,  snith  the 


Jeter's  campbellisji  exposed.  341 

Lord  God,  and  thou  becamest  mine.  Then  ic ashed  I  thee 
with  wafer ;  yea,  I  tlioroughlij  icashed  away  thy  blood  from 
thee,  and  I  anointed  thee  with  oil.  I  clothed  thee  also 
with  broidered  work,  and  shod  thee  with  badgers'  skin, 
and  I  girded  thee  about  with  fine  linen,  and  I  covered 
thee  with  silk.  I  decked  thee  also  with  ornaments," 
etc.,  etc. 

All  this,  of  course,  is  highly  figurative.  Yet  it  con- 
tains the  very  ideas  which  Paul  expresses.  God  is  speak- 
ing of  Israel  under  the  similitude  of  a  polluted,  neglected 
infant,  upon  whom  he  had  compassion,  and  took  and 
washed,  and  clothed,  and  ornamented,  and  married,  and 
made  glorious.  So  here  Paul  represents  the  Church  as 
the  bride  of  Christ,  upon  whom  he  placed  his  love.  He 
finds  her  first  polluted,  but  he  gives  himself  for  her  that 
he  may  sanctify  and  cleanse  her.  This  he  does  by  his 
blood  and  spirit.  These  are  the  efficient  causes.  His 
blood  cleanses  from  all  sin.  His  spirit  changes  and 
sanctifies  the  heart.  All  this,  however,  is  done  by  means 
of  the  word.  It  may  be  said  of  the  whole  Church  as  of 
the  Corinthian  :  "  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sancti- 
fied, but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God." — 1  Cor.  vi  :  11. 

I  have,  however,  no  objection  to  the  idea  that  baptism 
is  alluded  to,  as  it  does  in  symbol  what  the  blood  of  Christ 
does  in  fact. 

Now,  reader,  I  have  stated  to  you  plainly  my  view  of 
this  passage  in  connection  with  my  objections  to  that 
given  by  Mr.  Lard,  and  it  is  for  you  to  judge  between 
us.  I  feel  confident  that  you  will  say  that  I  have  shown 
Mr.  Lard's  view  to  be  incorrect,  and  proved  that  this  text 
also  yields  his  proposition  no  support,  and  offers  no  oppo- 
sition to  mine. 


342  AN   EXAMINATION   OF    LARD'S   REVIEW   OP 

§  17. — MR.    lard's   EIGHTH    ARGUMENT. 

"  Our  eighth  argument,"  says  Mr.  Lard,  "  is  derived 
from  the  following  :  '■For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greeh,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is 
neither  male  nor  female :  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abrahavi's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.^  " 

Mr.  Lard  attempts  to  make  this  test  yield  him  sup- 
port in  the  following  manner:  "Certainly  the  espres 
sion  '  in  Christ'  is  not  to  be  taken  literally  ;  and  yet  there 
can  exist  little  or  no  doubt  as  to  its  import  or  the  relation 
which  it  expresses.  Now,  we  maintain  that  the  very  fact 
that  we  enter  into  Christ  by  baptism,  or  into  the  relation 
which  this  language  expresses,  involves  the  connection 
between  baptism  and  the  remission  of  sins  for  which  we 
contend. 

"That  the  instant  in  which  a  person  becomes  an  '  heir 
according  to  the  jvomise,'  he  becomes  a  Christian,  or  is 
forgiven,  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  admit  of  argument. 
To  suppose  a  person  an  '  heir,'  and  yet  not  forgiven,  or 
forgiven  and  yet  not  an  heir,  involves  a  contradiction,  if 
not  in  words,  at  least  in  fact.  But  when  do  we  become 
heirs?  The  reply  is.  When  we  become  Abraham's  chil- 
dren, not  according  to  the  flesh,  certainly,  but  when  we 
are  constituted  such.  But  when  do  we  become  Abra- 
ham's children?  Certainly  when  we  become  Christ's; 
and  we  become  Christ's  when  in  him,  and  not  before. 
For,  says  the  apostle,  you  are  all  one  in  Christ,  and  if 
Christ's,  (which  you  are  if  in  him,)  then  are  you  Abra- 
ham's seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise. 

"Now,  what  persons  alone  are  in  Christ?  As  many, 
is  the  reply,  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  and  not 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  343 

o)ie  more.  If,  now,  none  out  of  Christ  are  forgiven,  (and 
let  him  who  so  affirms  prove  it,)  and  if  all  in  him  are, 
then  the  very  act  of  entering  info  him  makes  the  differ- 
ence between  the  forgiven  and  the  unforgiven  person. 
If  there  is  any  value  in  implication,  this  is  conclusive." 

Now,  the  hinge  upon  which  Mr.  Lard's  argument  here 
turns,  is  this  :  that  no  man  can  be  in  Christ  without  be- 
ing baptized  info  him.  Hence,  no  man  can  be  pardoned 
without  baptism,  because  out  of  Christ  there  is  no  pardon. 
I  admit  that  out  of  Christ  there  is  no  pardon  :  but  I  deny 
that  no  man  can  be  in  Christ  without  baptism.  It  is  not 
my  business  to  prove  a  negative.  Still  I  will  do  it,  and 
thus  destroy  his  argument.  I  have  already  explained 
what  is  meant  by  being  baptized  into  Christ.  (See  p. 
306,  307.)     Upon  this  subject  I  shall  add  nothing. 

That  a  man  can  be  in  Christ  without  baptism,  the  fol- 
lowing passages  prove  : 

1.  Philippians  iii :  8,  9:  "Yea  doubtless,  and  I  count 
all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge 
of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord  :  for  whom  I  have  suffered  the 
loss  of  all  things,  and  do  count  them  but  dung,  that  I 
may  ivin  Christ,  and  he  found  in  him,  not  having  mine 
own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which 
is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which 
is  of  God  by  faith."  Now,  reader,  does  not  Paul  here 
plainly  show  that  to  be  found  in,  Christ  one  must  have 
the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  bi/  faith? 

The  relation  expressed  by  in  Christ,  is  a  vital  one,  such 
as  exists  between  a  vine  and  its  hrayichcs.  Without  this 
union  with  Christ  we  have  no  life,  no  holiness,  no 
strength.  If,  then,  we  can  be  alive  without  baptism,  we 
can  be  in  Christ  withovit  baptism.  If  we  can  be  pure  in 
heart,  or  holy,  without  baptism,  we  can  be  in  Christ  with- 
out baptism. 


344  AN    EXAMINATION   OF   LARD's   REVIEW   OP 

2.  John  xv:  4:  "  x\s  the  branch  can  not  bear  fruit  of 
itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine  :  no  more  can  ye,  except 
ye  abide  in  me."  This  declaration  of  the  Savior  shows, 
that  out  of  him  there  is  no  fruit-bearing.  Then,  there 
is  no  fruit  bearing  without  baptism.  Does  this  conclu- 
sion accord  with  facts  ?  If  so,  how  will  you  account  for 
the  naany,  many  examples  of  eminent  piety  found  among 
Pedobaptists?  Now,  we  must  either  deny  Mr.  Lard's 
view,  or  deny  that  there  can  be  any  Pedobaptist  piety,  or 
admit  their  baptism.  That  they  are  baptized  we  can  not 
admit;  that  they,  or  at  least  many  of  them,  are  pious, 
eminently  pious,  we  can  not  deny.  Then  the  only  alter- 
native left  us,  is  to  conclude  that  a  man  can  be  in  Christ 
without  baptism. 

From  the  foregoing  considerations,  I  feel  authorized  to 
say  of  this  text  as  I  have  said  of  all  its  predecessors :  it 
gives  Mr.  Lard's  proposition  no  support,  and  oiFers  no 
opposition  to  mine. 

MR.    lard's   ninth   AND    LAST    ARGUMENT. 

"As  the  basis  of  our  ninth  and  last  argument,"  says 
Mr.  Lard,  "  we  cite  the  following :  '■And  he  said,  Sirs, 
ichdt  must  I  do  to  he.  saved?  And.  they  said,  Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and.  thou  shalt  he  S'(ved.'  " 

I  know  the  reader  will  be  curious  to  know  how  Mr. 
Lard  gets  proof  of  his  proposition  out  of  this  text.  He 
gets  no  proof  out  of  it.  He  only  labors  to  show  that  it 
is  not  against  him.  I  would  admit  that,  if  he  had  proved 
his  proposition  by  other  portions  of  the  word  of  God, 
this  passage  would  not  disprove  it.  But  I  have  shown 
that  all  his  proof-texts  have  failed  to  yield  him  any  proof. 
Hence,  this  text  is  against  him. 

Here,  then,  I  close.  I  wish  it  distinctly  understood  that 
I  do  not  oppose  baptism  as  a  duty  enjoined  upon  all  pen- 


Jeter's  campbellism  exposed.  345 

itent  believers.  I  only  oppose  the  position  assigned  it 
by  Mr.  Lard  and  the  current  reformation.  They  exalt 
it  to  a  position  nowhere  assigned  it  in  the  Bible.  It  is 
their  spiritual  panacea.  Everything  else  without  it  is  as 
nothing.  Taking  the  whole  of  what  Mr.  Lard  has  said 
together,  and  what  can  one  have  without  baptism.  "With- 
out it  he  can  not  be  born  again  ;  without  it  he  can  not 
be  in  Christ;  without  it  his  sins  can  not  be  remitted; 
without  it  he  can  not  have  a  good  conscience;  without 
it  he  can  not  be  cleansed;  without  it  he  can  not  be 
saved  ! 

Now,  let  any  one  believe  all  this,  and  is  he  not  in  dan- 
ger of  placing  all  his  hopes  of  salvation  on  baptism? 
Talk  to  him  about  faith,  and  repentance,  and  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  the  sanctifying  Spirit  of  God,  and  he  will 
reply,  What  are  all  these  without  baptism  ?  His  faith 
and  his  repentance  avail  him  nothing  until  he  goes  into 
the  water.  And  the  blood,  and  righteousness,  and  inter- 
cession of  Jesus  avail  him  nothing  until  he  is  baptized. 
But  let  him  be  baptized,  and  he  is  assured  of  everything. 
Then  he  is  in  Christ;  then  he  is  born  again;  then  he 
is  pardoned  ;  then  he  is  an  heir  of  God ;  then  he  is 
washed  from  his  sins;  then  he  has  a  good  conscience; 
then  he  has  the  aids  of  the  Spirit ;  then,  in  a  word, 
he  is  a  new  creature,  and  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
every  good  work. 

Rather  let  the  sinner  follow  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 
Repent  and  believe  the  Gospel.  Come  back  to  God,  as 
the  prodigal  came  to  his  father ;  look  to  the  blood  of 
Christ  as  the  only  propitiation,  and  expect  salvation  on 
the  ground  of  faith  in  him.  Let  him  gladly  receive  the 
ti;uth,  have  peace  with  God  through  Jesus,  have  his  soul 
filled  with  love  to  God  and  to  his  people,  and  be  assured 
that  he  has  passed  from  death  unto  life,  and  then  let  him 
15- 


346  AN    EXAMINATION   OP    LARD's    REVIEW. 

say:  "See!  here  is  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  from 
being  baptized." 

Coming  to  the  ordinance  thus,  he  can  honestly  and  in- 
telligibly make  the  profession  it  requires.  With  an 
approving  conscience  he  can  declare  that  he  is  dead  to 
sin  and  alive  to  God.  That  his  faith  is  in  the  Father,  and 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  With  a  free,  good  will, 
can  he  take  the  yoke  of  Christ  upon  him,  and  vow  to  be 
his,  and  pledge  himself  to  walk  in  newness  of  life.  And 
then  he  can  pass  on  through  life  doing  the  will  of  God 
from  the  heart,  and  looking  forward  for  a  blessed  immor- 
tality, knowing  in  whom  he  has  believed,  and  enjoying 
the  confident  persuasion  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that 
which  he  has  committed  to  him. 

And  now,  reader,  I  commend  you  to  the  mercy  and 
grace  of  God,  which  will  preserve  you  from  the  path  of 
error,  keep  you  from  falling,  and  at  last  present  you 
blameless  before  the  throne. 

That  this  may  be  the  lot  of  the  writer,  and  all  who 
read  what  is  written,  is  the  prayer  of 

YourS;  to  serve  in  Jesus  Christ, 

Amen. 


APPENDIX. 


UPON  reflection,  I  have  thought  that  I  might  do  the 
reader  a  service  by  submitting  to  him,  in  a  few  brief 
remarks,  my  views  upon  the  design  of  Christian  baptism. 
My  views  on  this  subject  might  be  gathered  by  a  careful 
hand,  from  what  I  have,  from  time  to  time,  said  in  my 
replies  to  Mr.  Lard's  arguments  :  but  they  might  escape 
the  most  of  my  readers.  I  will,  therefore,  embody  them 
here. 

1.  I  look  upon  baptism  as  commemorative  of  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

Nearly  all  the  ordinances  of  God  are  of  this  character. 
Circumcision  is,  I  believe,  an  exception.  They  are  de- 
signed to  commemorate  some  mighty  event  which  has 
transpired  in  his  Divine  interposition  in  behalf  of  his 
people. 

The  Passover  was  commemorative  of  Israel's  deliver- 
ance from  their  thralldom  in  Egypt. 

The  Pentecost,  or  Feast  of  Weeks,  was  commemorative 
of  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai,  which  took' place  seven 
weeks  after  the  former  occurrence. 

The  Feast  of  Purim  was  commemorative  of  the  deliv- 
erance of  the  Jews  from  the  destruction  plotted  against 
them  by  Haman  in  the  days  of  Esther. 

And  so  the  Lord's  Supper  is  commemorative  of  the 
death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

(347) 


348  APPENDIX. 

But  DOW,  have  we  no  corainemorative  rite  for  his  burial 
and  resurrection  ?  We  have  not,  unless  baptism  is  that 
rite. 

Now,  I  can  not  believe  that  God  would  be  careful  to 
provide  for  the  commemoration  of  those  other  events,  and 
then  fail  to  make  any  such  provision  for  this.  It  may 
be  said  that  in  comparison  with  this  the  rest  are  quite 
insignificant.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  mightiest 
event  that  has  ever  occurred.  It  is  the  basis  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  It  is  the  foundation  of  all  our  hopes. 
Remove  it,  and  the  whole  structure  of  Christianity  tum- 
bles into  ruins. 

A  fact,  then,  so  grand,  of  such  magnitude,  and  of  such 
importance,  could  not  be  allowed  to  go  without  commem- 
oration. And  can  not  that  eye  of  faith  that  sees  the 
broken  body  of  Jesus  in  the  broken  loaf — that  sees  the 
warm  blood  flowing  from  his  cleft  side  in  the  flowing 
wine,  see  the  buried  Savior  in  the  immersion  of  one  dead 
to  sin  ;  and  can  it  not  see  him  risen  in  the  emersion  that 
follows? 

And  what  strengthens  this  thought  is,  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  command  to  baptize  proves  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus.  It  was  he  that  said  :  "  Go,  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  But  he  said  this  after  his 
resurrection.  As  he  had  not  said  it  before,  he  had  to 
arise  from  the  dead  to  say  it.  And  I  state  it  with  all 
possible  emphasis,  tJiat  the  existence  of  this  command  can 
not  be  accounted  for  by  any  one  xoho  denies  the  restirrection 
of  Jesus.  Had  Jesus  given  this  command  before  his 
death,  no  one  afterward  would  have  felt  its  obligation. 
His  failure  to  rise  again  would  have  proved  him  an 
impostor,  and  the  command  would  have  perished  with 
him. 


APPENDIX.  349 

Well,  none  after  his  death  would  have  given  it.  The 
Jews  would  not.  They  did  not  want  all  nations  taught 
and  baptized  in  the  name  of  him  whom  they  had  rejected 
and  crucified.  Or,  if  it  were-  possible  to  suppose  such 
an  incongruous  idea,  who  could  have  given  it  authority 
with  Christians?  Would  Christians  obey  the  command 
of  the  Jews  to  preach  and  baptize  in  all  the  world  at  the 
sacrifice  of  their  own  lives,  and  preach  an  impostor  at 
that? 

Well,  can  we  conjecture  that  Christians  would  impose 
upon  themselves  so  onerous  a  task,  for  which  they  could 
expect  no  reward  in  earth  or  heaven,  when,  by  advo- 
cating the  claims  of  an  impostor,  they  sacrificed  both 
worlds?  Never!  no,  never!  Then  the  very  existence 
of  the  command  proves  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  How 
fit,  then,  that  the  ordinance  should  commemorate  what  it 
thus  proves. 

2.  The  ordinance  of  baptism,  like  some  of  the  other 
ordinances  to  which  we  have  alluded,  while  it  commemo- 
rates, also  typifies  and  promises.  The  Passover,  while  it 
commemorates  the  deliverance  of  Israel,  typified  Christ, 
our  passover,  who  has  been  sacrificed  for  us. — 1  Cor.  v:  7. 
It  pointed  forward  to  him  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  who 
should  take  away  the  sin  of  the  world. — John  i :  29.  So 
baptism,  while  it  commemorates  the  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus,  typifies  and  pledges  our  resurrection  from 
the  grave.  This  I  take  to  be  the  import  of  1  Corinthians 
XV  :  29:  '•'■Else  what  shall  they  do,  which  are  baptized  for 
the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  why  are  they  then 
baptized  for  the  deadV^ 

Remember,  in  this  chapter  the  apostle  labors  to  prove  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead — an  event  denied  by  some  in 
the  Corinthian  Church.  He  uses,  first,  the  argument  drawn 


350  APPENDIX. 

from  the  acknowledged  resurrection  of  Christ.  These 
two  events,  according  to  Paul,  were  associated  together 
as  cause  and  effect,  and  they  stood  or  fell  together.  Tjie 
one  could  not  be  denied  without  the  other  being  denied. 
He  draws,  secondly,  an  argument  from  baptism.  As  if 
he  had  said  :  "  Your  denial  of  the  resurrection,  in  effect, 
is  a  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Then  you 
make  baptism  a  ridiculous  farce.  You  have  commemo- 
rated an  event  that  never  occurred.  You  have  been  bap- 
tized on  account  of  one  that  still  sleeps  in  the  grave. 
And  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all,  as  you  say,  your  baptism 
has  no  meaning  :  it  is  a  resurrection  in  type.  But  what 
signifies  a  type  if  there  be  no  antitype  ?" 

And,  now,  how  important  does  baptism  appear  under 
this  view  ?  Every  newly  converted  person  is  required  in 
this  rite  to  bear  witness  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
He  believes  in  his  heart  that  God  has  raised  Christ  from 
the  dead,  (Rom.  x  :  9,)  and  now  he  declares  his  faith  in 
action.  And  when  he  remembers  that  God  never  gives 
a  pledge  he  does  not  redeem,  how  delightfully  should  he 
accept  of  this  pledge.  Standing  in  the  water,  with  his 
soul  full  of  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  of 
hope  of  his  own  future  resurrection,  how  cheerfully  can 
he  submit  to  be  buried  in  it,  and  raised  again,  when  he 
feels  that  in  the  same  act  he  commemorates  the  one  and 
typifies  the  other  ! 

3.  But  baptism  is  still  designed  for  more  than  this. 
It  is  to  its  recipient  an  act  of  j^rofesslon.  This  we  learn 
from  Romans  vi :  1-6.  Paul  here  runs  an  analogy  be- 
tween the  baptized  and  Christ.     The  analogy  is  this  : 

1st.  Christ  died  for  sin — we  die  to  sin. 

2d.  After  his  death,  Christ  was  buried — we,  after  our 
death  to  sin,  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism. 


APPENDIX.  351 

3cl.  His  burial  was  proof  of  his  death — so  our  burial  is 
proof  of  our  death  :  "  We  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death." 

4th.  Christ  was  raised  to  die  no  more,  but  to  live  unto 
God — so  we  are  raised  out  of  the  water  to  die  no  more 
to  sin,  but  to  live  unto  God  ;  to  walk  in  newness  of 
life. 

4.  It  is  an  act  in  which  we  declare  our  faith  in  Jesus, 
as  our  great  prophet,  priest,  and  king,  and  yield  our- 
selves entirely  to  his  control.  This  Paul  teaches  us  in 
Galatians  iii :  27  :  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  As  we  are  cov- 
ered by  our  clothes,  so  are  we  by  the  authority  of  Jesus, 
the  whole  man  is  by  voluntary  dedication  his. 

5.  Baptism  is  an  act  in  which  we  recognize  obligations. 
This  is  what  Peter  means  when  he  says  baptism  is  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God.  In  the  rite, 
God  presents  claims;  the  conscience  of  the  subject  re- 
sponds to  them.  It  is,  therefore,  in  some  respects,  like 
the  oath  of  allegiance.  The  Government  presents  claims 
or  obligations  to  all  who  would  become  naturalized,  which 
of  course  they  assume  when  they  take  the  oath.  And 
if  they  are  honest,  have  at  the  time  a  good  conscience, 
it  is  to  them  the  answer  or  stipulation  of  a  good  con- 
science. 

6.  Baptism  is  the  dividing  line  between  us  and  our 
sins.  We  come  to  Jesus  by  faith,  and  have  him  to  say 
to  us  as  he  did  to  the  leper  :  "  I  will ;  be  thou  clean" — 
have  his  blood  to  purge  our  conscience  from  dead  works, 
and  we  then  wash  them  away  in  baptism.  We  leave 
them  really  and  formally  on  that  side  of  the  water. 

If  all  the  foregoing  be  true,  reader,  how  important 
and  significant  an  ordinance  is  baptism.     We  can  not 


352  APPENDIX. 

exalt  it  too  highly  unless  we  place  it,  as  Mr.  Lard  has 
done,  among  the  causes  of  justification  and  salvation. 
But  this,  I  hope,  none  will  do  who  reads  this  book. 

Once  more  I  recommend  you  to  God  and  the  word  of 
his  grace. 

Farewell. 


THE     END 


CATALOGUE 

OF    THE 

SOUTH-WESTERN 

PUBLISHING    HOUSE. 

3.   K.   GRATES. — TV.   P.   MARKS. — S.    C.   ROGERS. — E.    F.   P.   FOCL. 

GRAVES,  MARKS  &  CO., 

NASnVILIiE,    TENir. 


PERIODICAL    PUBLICATIONS. 

THE  TENNESSEE  BAPTIST. 

ISSUE   14,000  WEEKLY. 

J.  R.  GRAVES,  J.  M.  PENDLETON,  and  A.  C.  DAYTON,  Ebitoks. 

ASSISTED  BY  AN  ABLE  CORPS  OF  CONTRIBUTORS,  AMONG  WHOM  IS  G.  H.  0:XCHAr.D 
OP  ENGLAND,  THE  MOST  EMINENT  CHURCH  HISTORIAN  OF  THIS  AGE. 

This  paper  contains  the  large.=t  amount  of  ori^^inal  matter  of  any  paper  in  the 
South  or  South-west.  Its  character  is  well  known  as  a  staunch  Saptlst 
paper. 

It  is  either  edited  with  unusual  ability,  by  the  editor  and  his  corrospondonts, 
or  the  dootrines  and  practices  it  advocates  are  tremendously  true,  since  it  haa 
obtained  an  unparalleled  circulation  in  a  short  time,  which  is  rapidly  in- 
creasing. 

It  is  designed  to  make  the  Tennessee  Baptist  just  such  a  paper  as  the  de 
nomination  needs,  and  the  exigencies  of  the  times  demand.  One  paper  of  uni- 
versal circulation  in  the  South  and  South-west,  for  purposes  of  intercommuni- 
cation, is  greatly  needed.     The  Tennessee  Baptist  is  becoming  that  paper. 

TERMS. — $2.00  per  annum,  in  advance ;  $3.00  if  payment  is  delayed 
longer  than  twelve  months 


FER'ODICAL    PI  BLICAT  LONS. 


THE  SOUTHERN  EAPTIST  REVIEW. 

(ISSUE  1500. -QUARTERLY,  S2  00  PER  ANNUM.) 

Edilors — J.  R.  Graves,  Naahville.     J.  M.  Pendleton,    Unicm    UnivefxUy 
Tenn.     A.  C.  Dayton,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

This  work  euterfid  upon  its  third  volume  January  1st,  18.57.  It  ha? 
already  secured  a  high  positioa  as  a  Theological  and  Literary  work :  and 
as  a  staunch  <ip)iow!n«Zion«/ publication,  it  has  no  equal.  The  publishers 
will  spare  uo  expense  in  the  typographical  department,  and  conlidently 
appeal  to  the  Baptist  ministry  and  membership.  South,  to  extend  to  it  a 
liberal  patronage. 

Tlie  follo\fing  notices  reflect  the  opinion  of  the  Baptist  press.  South: 
Biblical  Recorder,  N.  C. 

The  work  is  decidedl.y  a  Bajjtist  work :  it  sets  forth  and  defends  their 
views  of  scrii)tural  doctrine  with  a  clearness,  pungency,  and  power  which 
we  have  seldom  seen  equalled.  We  most  heartily  recommend  this  Review 
as  au  able  exposition  of  Baptist  orthodoxy. 

Religious  Herald,  Richmond,  Va. 

SorTHEKN  F.ai"ti?t  Review. — We  have  received  No.  1  of  Volume  II.  of 
of  this  Review — Graves,  Marks  &  Company,  Publishers,  Nashville — Elder 
J.  R.  Graves,  J.  M.  Pendleton,     and    A.    C.    Dayton,    Editors.  It  is 

much  more  Baptistic  than  the  Christian  Review,  being  devoted  more  ex- 
clusively to  Baptist  literature,  to  the  maintenance  of  our  tenets  ano 
practice,  und  to  refuting  the  objections  of  gainsayers.  It  is  an  able  ant 
(iractical  work,  is  doing  good  service,  and  ought  to  receive  a  libera 
patronage. 


THE  CHILMEN^S  MONTHLY  BOOK. 

EDITED    BY    UNCLE    ROBIN    AND    AUNT    ALICE. 

SI  00  PER  ANNUM— IN  ADVANCE. 

JUST    THE   THING   FOR   YOUR    CHILDREN! 

^^  Tender  Grass  for  little  J^ambs." 

This  is  a  Southern  publication,  beautifully  illustrated,  and  edited  h» 
Uncle  Robin  and  Aunt  Alice,  with  special  reference  to  its  moral  and  inteJ 
lectual  mfluence  upon  the  young  mind. 

It  is  pionounccd  the  best  publication  for  chUd/-en  that  has  yet  appearvd  i' 
America.     Specimeii  copies  sent  if  desired. 

Address  GRAVES.  MARKS  &  CO..  Nashullo.  Tenu. 


CATALOGUE    OF    BOOKS. 


THEODOSIA   ERNEST: 

on, 

THE  HEROINE  OF  FAITH. 

Volume  I. ;  pp.  400;   $1. 

THEODOSIA   ERNEST; 

OR, 

m  \m  TRW'EL  I^'  SElRl'il  OF  THE  CIllRCIl. 

Volume  II. ;  pp.  485;   $1. 

It  li.is  been  said  by  tbose  well  acquainted  with  our  religious  litciatuio,  that  ct 
two  lienoniinatlonal  works  of  equal  ability  and  value  have  ever  been  written  io 
Anieiica.  The  first  volume  treats  of  the  Act  and  Subjects  of  Baptism,  in  connec- 
rion  Willi  the  Conversion  and  Baptism  of  Tlieodosia,  —  and  of  liestricted  Com- 
iKUnion. — to  relieve  tlie  doubts  of  several  of  her  near  relatives  and  friends.  The 
Becond  volume  treats  exclu-sively  of  Church  Polity;  or  which,  of  all  tlie  rival 
Sects  in  Cliristend(jm.  is  the  Chuicli  of  Christ,  or  like  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
or  the  churches  of  .Judea,  Samaria,  and  Galatia,  or  are  they  all  equally  scriptural 
churches?  The  essential  char.-iCteristics  of  a  scriptural  church  are  fii-st  ascer- 
tained by  a  thorough  examination  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  organization,  polity, 
doctrines,  and  histm-y  of  all  the  so-called  "evangelical  churches,"  tried  by  these 
scriptural  characteristics.  It  is  a  text-book  on  Church  Polity,  as  volume  first  it 
upon  the  Act,  the  Subjects  of  Baptism,  and  the  Communion  Question.  The  logic 
is  irresistible,  and  the  .style  of  the  works  of  such  inimitable  freshness,  that  whoevci 
reads  one  page  will  never  stop  satisfied  short  of  a  perusal  cf  the  entire  series. 
Christians  of  all  names  read  them  with  equal  avidity. 

If  it  is  said  they  are  nnvds,  that  the  characters  and  narrative  part  are  fictitioua 
let  it  be  answered,  So  are  the  parables  of  the  Saviour. — of  "The  Prodigal  Son.' 
of  "The  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,"  of  '-The  Wicked  Ilusbandmen;"  let  it  be  an- 
swered. So  is  the  narrative  of  Bunyan's  immortal  work,  and  of  Milton's  Paradi.so 
Lost.  The  Saviour's  hearers  understood  as  well  as  Bunyan's  and  Milton's  readern 
understand,  perfectly  well,  that  these  were  fictitious  narratives,  employed  to  gain 
attention  to  a  real  truth.  Such  fiction  is  no  falsehood.  It  is  not  intended  to  deceive, 
Riid  it  does  not  deceive.  Its  object  is  accomplished  when  it  has  won  the  attention 
to  the  truth  of  which  it  is  maile  the  vehicle. 

These  volumes  are  admirably  suited  to  be  the  pastor's  assistants.  With  a  littlu 
effort  to  bring  them  to  the  notice  or  place  them  within  the  reach  of  his  people,  they 
will  bo  read,  and  especially  by  the  young,  when  no  other  religious  book  would  be 
opeurd. 

They  are  beautiful  gift-books  from  parents  to  children,  and  from  one  Christian 
friend  to  another.     Their  interest  will  continue  while  opposing  sects  exist. 

14,000  copies  of  the  first  volume  were  sold  in  the  first  six  months  after  its  ajipear- 
ance,  an  I  it  is  believed  that  the  second  volume  will  obtain  a  still  larger  circulation 
In  the  same  period. 

The  argument  is  complete  in  each  volume,  upon  the  subject  treated,  so  that  eithoi 
may  be  read  without  the  other. 

Prnm  the  BihUcal  liecorder,  N.  C. 

TnF.onosi.^.:  on.  The  Hkroixe  of  F.\iTn. 

We  have  read  with  no  little  interest  this  most  excellent  book.  It  possesses  all  tlif 
leriousn'jss  of  trntli,  in  tracing  step  by  stop  the  progress  of  a  sincere  inquirer  afte? 
liunluty     We  lan  no  boUor  express  the  high  estimate  we  place  tP"B  it  than  »)j 


CATALOGUE   OF   BOOKS. 


■dying,  that  if  its  author  should  ever  write  another  book,  it  will  call  forth  his  higher. 

skill  to  make  one  that  shall  equal  in  interest  his  Theodosia  Ernest The  spirit  which 

Theodosia  discovers  in  her  search  fot  the  right  way — her  struggles  in  breaking  from 
old  connections — the  giving  up  the  ciiurch  in  which  she  was  early  received,  in  ordei 
to  discharge  a  dntj',  will  tind  a  response  in  the  bosom  of  thousands  who  have  beeL 
similarly  situated. 

From  the  True  Union,  Baltimore. 
This  work  first  appeared  in  the  Tennessee  Baptist,  and  now  comes  out  in  a  hand 
some  volume,  with  a  portrait  of  Theodosia.     It  is  a  series  of  strong  and  conclusive 
ttrgumeuts  upon  the  mode  and  subjects  of  Baptism  and  the  close  communion  ques- 
tion, with  a  very  slight  veil  of  fiction  to  impart  additional  interest  to  the  work. 

From  the  Texas  Baptist. 

As  thousands  fall  in  love  with  the  "Heroine  of  Faith"  upon  first  sight — as  thf 
publishers  find  it  almost  impossible  to  supply  the  demand  for  the  book — as  it  ha? 
produced  such  an  immediate  and  wido-spread  enthusiasm — the  philosopher,  as  well 
as  the  theologian,  should  inquire  into  the  causes  of  its  powerful  effects.  So  f*r  as 
we  have  seen,  the  multitude  of  critics  and  reviewers  have  only  admired  the  foliage, 
flower  and  fruit,  without  analyzing  the  soil,  or  seed,  or  root.  Why  will  Theodosia 
accomplish  immensely  more  good  than  any  other  book  upon  the  baptismal  contro- 
versy? 

We  bsV-eve  it  is  Macaulay  who  says  that  the  Pilgrim's  Progress  will  be  read  by  the 
child  for  thy  stc:y,  by  the  Christian  for  the  piet}',  and  by  the  genius  for  the  literary 
merit.  This  v.i\  equally  apply  to  Theodosia.  AVe  ventured  to  prophesy  several  years 
since  of  a  cias?  of  teachers  who  shall  arise  from  the  future,  to  adapt  moral  instruc- 
tion to  grown  p'3oi>le,  in  the  same  natural  and  attractive  style  in  which  Sunday-school 
books  interest  and  instruct  children;  and  the  author  who  may,  with  graphic  power, 
represent  ethics  and  theology  in  persons,  acts,  and  scenes,  will  be  read  by  excited 
millions,  and  will  bless  each  delighted  reader.  To  prove  this  st.atement  we  need  only 
refer  to  Bunyan.  This  prophecy,  which  we  uttered  several  yeai"s  since,  has  its  fulfil- 
ment commenced  in  Theodosia.  We  hail  "The  Heroine  of  Faith"  as  "the  morning 
star"  of  that  brighter  day,  when  moral  truth  shall  bo  addressed  to  the  aptitudes  and 
capacities  of  the  mind  in  histories,  memoirs,  biographies — in  parables,  narratives, 
illustrations — in  books  adapting  "  moral  instruction  to  grov.n  people  in  the  same 
natural  and  instructive  style  in  which  Sunday-school  books  interest  and  instruct 
children." 

From  the  Commission,  mdimnnd,  Va. 

[This  notice  was  written  by  A.  M.  Poindcxter,  Editor.] 

Theodosi.\  Krnest;  or,  The  Heroine  or  Faith.  Nashville,  Tenn.:  Graves,  Marks 
&  Rutland.     New  York:  Sheldon,  Blakeman  &  Co. 

We  have  received  from  the  author  this  interesting  and  valuable  work.  We  read 
portions  of  it  as  they  were  issued  in  the  Tennessee  Baptist,  and  since  the  publication 
of  the  book  had  occasionally  looked  over  some  of  the  chapters.  Since  receiving  the 
copy  from  the  author,  we  have  found  time  to  give  it  a  thorough  perusal.  AVe  had 
before  been  pleased  with  what  we  had  read,  but  had  no  just  appreciation  of  the  inte- 
rest and  value  of  the  work.  It  attracts  the  mind  with  the  fascination  of  a  novel, 
but  the  interest  of  the  narrative  only  fixes  the  attention  upon  the  argument.  Thii 
author  has  evidently  no  mean  capacity  as  a  writer  of  fiction,  but  he  displays  oven 
superior  ability  for  close  analysis  and  correct  reasoning.  It  is  one  of  the  fairest  and 
most  conclusive,  and  certainly  the  most  attractive,  arguments  we  have  read  upon  tho 
subjects — Bajitism  and  Communion.  It  is  written  in  a  kiud  and  courteous  spirit. 
There  is  nothing  to  offend  the  most  refined  taste  or  delicate  sensiliility. 

Buy  the  book  and  read  it,  and  we  are  sure  you  will  desire  to  promote  its  circuUil  ion 

F-om  the  Home  and  Foreign  Journal. 
[Reviow  by  Elder  James  B.  T.iyloi-,  Richmond,  Va.] 
This  is  one  of  the  books  to  be  unconditionally  recommended. 

From  t/ie  Louisiana  Baptist. 
It  teaches  the  truth  in  a  forcible  and  agreeable  manner.     In  point  of  argr.meni 
few  works  on  baptism  excel  it,  while  it  has  the  advantage  of  being  so  plain  that  all 
ran  comprehend  it.    It  is,  uiion  the  nhole,  a  n-astcrly  production— a  rorearkablt 
book. 


CATALOGUE    OF    B0OK8. 


From  the  Brenville  Times,  Louisiana. 

Orciuiid's  HisTORr  op  the  Baptists:     Published    by  Graves,  Marks,  A 

Co.,  NasLvllIe,  Tenn.     Introductory  by  J.  B.  Graves. 

This  is  a  beautiful  Tolurae  of  about  400  pages,  got  up  in  the  best  style  of  the 
art.  It  traces  in  a  clear  and  connected  manner  the  history  of  the  Baptisti 
Jrom  Christ  down  to  the  present  century,  and  is  the  only  work  we  know  of 
that  does.  It  is  a  most  opportune  publication,  and  should  be  read  and  studied 
by  every  inquirer  after  truth.  If  history  is  competent  to  prove  anything,  the 
question  of  the  existence  of  the  doctrine  and  practices  of  the  Baptists  in  apos- 
tolic times,  is  an.'wered,  .ind  ought  to  be  settled.  It  will  never  be  successfully 
contradicted.     Most  cordially  do  we  commend  it  to  the  public. 

From  the  Biblical  Recorder,  North  Carolina. 

When  we  consider  the  fact  that  the  more  intelligent  and  well-informed 
Christi.ans  are  but  partially  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  church,  while 
the  great  body  of  professing  Christians  are  almost  entirely  ignorant  of  so  great 
and  important  a  subject,  we  rejoice  in  any  effort  that  may  call  to  it  more  gen- 
eral attention.  Christians  ought  to  be  better  acquainted  than  they  are  with 
the  leading  facts  of  Christianity. 

The  above  work  brings  this  subject  within  such  limits  and  presents  it  in  so 
concise  a  manner  as  to  enable  the  general  reader  to  get  the  most  important 
facts  within  a  vAy  small  compass. 

From  the  New  York  Chronicle. 

This  is  the  long  title  of  a  very  good  book,  which  Mr.  Graves  has  done  a 
raluable  service  in  introducing  to  the  reading  community.  The  general 
;ourje  of  Church  history,  by  detailing  the  corruptions  and  abominations  of 
Rome,  the  most  anti-Christian  power  on  earth,  we  have  long  esteemed  utterly 
'allacious.  As  well  might  we  record  the  life  and  conquests  of  Mohammed  and 
ihe  progress  of  Islamism,  as  part  and  parcel  of  ecclesiastical  history,  as  to  re 
eord  the  abominations  of  Romanism,  under  the  notion  that  they  have  any  othei 
connection,  than  that  of  antagonism,  with  the  true  Christianity  of  past  ages 
One  of  the  first  books  we  ever  owned  was  Jones'  Church  History,  in  which  en- 
tirely another  track  is  pursued,  and  Christianity  is  sought  for,  not  in  the  papal 
hierarchy,  but  among  the  proscribed  Albigenses,  Waldenses,  and  other  persecuted 
followers  of  Christ,  who  hid  themselves  in  the  fastnesses  of  the  earth,  from  the 
dominant  and  bloody  superstition.  These  honest  Baptists  breathed  the  air  of 
freedom  in  ages  of  despotism  ;  and,  "  through  the  example"  of  their  successes 
in  modern  times,  "  Republicanism  and  republican  instituticrns  have  already 
bequeathed  to  half  the  world,  and  are  now  rocking  the  other  half  to  its  centre, 
crumbling  the  thrones  of  its  tyrants,  and  arousing  and  energizing  oppressed 
humanity,  to  assert  its  rights,  and  overthrow  its  oppressors."  Mr.  Graves' 
Introductory  Essay,  from  which  we  quote,  is  worth  the  price  of  the  work. 

From,  the  Christian  Chronicle,  Philadelphia. 

Tha  title  page  is  so  full,  that  it  sufficiently  indicates  the  general  cbaractei 
of  the  book.  'Ihe  subject  is  a  most  important  one,  and  its  present  discussiuQ 
IS  timely,  ard  its  publication  highly  desirable.  So  much  mist  rests  on  tba 
question  here  suggested,  that  every  ray  of  light  shed  upon  it  from  the  .Scrip- 
ture* and  the  fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  profitable.     The  real  nr^.- 


CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 


■'tient  t?  well  set  forth  and  thf  hook  itself  invaluable.  The  author  was  weli 
posted  up  with  the  merits  of  hib  theme,  and  knew  well  whereof  he  afiarmed. 
From  the  Mountain  Messenger,  Va. 
Having  enjcjed  an  unusual  interval  of  leisure,  some  ten  days  ago,  while 
ileammg  it  between  this  and  Brownsville,  we  applied  ourselves  diligently  to 
the  perusal  of  this  work,  and  found  it  to  exceed  our  expectations  as  to  tha 
great  amount  of  facts  connected  with  the  early  history  of  Foreign  BaptistSj 
with  which  every  one  should,  if  possible,  be  familiar.  It  is  a  brief  condensa- 
tioii  ol  a  vast  amount  of  reliable  history  of  those  (whether  individuals  or  com- 
munities) who  bore  faithful  witness  for  the  truth  in  the  dark  ages.  In  fine, 
it  pre.sents  the  history  of  Baptists  abroad,  from  A.  D.  33  to  A.  D.  1800. — It  is 
a  work  which  should,  by  all  means,  bo  in  the  library  of  every  Gospel  Minis- 
ter  and  of  all  others  able  to  possess  it. 


PROF.  STUART  ON   BAPTISM. 

PRICE  REDUCED— 75  CENTS. 
SECOND    EDITION. 

This  work,  allowed  to  remain  in  obscurity  by  his  Paedobaptist  brethren  be 
cause  it  admitted  vastly  too  much  for  the  advocates  of  affusion,  has  been  hunted 
up  and  republished  by  Graves,  Marks  &  Co.,  together  with  an  Introductory 
Review  by  the  Editor,  and  a  valuable  appendix  selected  frcjr.  the  able  Review 
of  Stuart  by  Wm.  Judd.  It  is  no^7  one  of  the  ablest  Baptist  documents  extant. 
Paidobaptists  cannot  gainsay  or  answer  it.  To  Baptists  it  is  invested  with  pe- 
culiar interest,  from  the  fact  of  its  being  an  elaborate  reply  to  our  missionaries 
in  Burmah — A.  Judson  and  others — touching  the  translating  of  Baptizo  into 
Burmese,  which  gave  rise  to  the  A.  and  F.  Bible  Society.  "  IIAVE  YOI' 
SEEN     IT  7" 

From  G.  S.  Baker,  late  Editor  of  Christian  Index,  Ga. 

This  is  another  of  the  publications  issued  by  Gravc.«i,  Marks  &  Co.,  of  Nash- 
ville The  denomination  is  certainly  under  very  great  obligations  to  the  pub- 
lishers for  rescuing  this  publication  from  the  "  tomb  of  the  Capulets,"  to  which 
it  seemed  doomed  by  the  Poedobapti.st  denomination  with  which  the  author  was 
connected.  Nearly  twenty  years  ago  I  urged  upon  brethren  to  endeavor  to 
have  an  edition  of  it  brought  out  for  circulation  by  Bi]jtists,  but  was  informed 
that  it  could  not  be  done,  as  the  author's  brethren  in  the  Church  were  very 
much  displeased  with  him  for  its  publication,  and  were  buying  up  all  the  copies 
they  could  find,  in  order  to  suppress  it.  In  1836  a  ministering  brother  of 
Virginia  borrowed  a  copy  of  it  from  me  for  one  of  his  Presbyterinn  neighbors 
to  read.  This  neiglibor  read  a  little  in  it,  closed  it,  and  handed  it  back  Uj  him, 
'-elling  him  he  would  not  read  it — it  was  a  Baptist  work.  I  never  saw  my 
oopy  afterwards.  In  1840,  in  a  discussion  with  a  Presbyterian  gentleman,  a 
graduate  of  Princeton,  I  referred  to  the  testimony  of  Prof  Stuart,  lie  replied, 
'  Oh,  Prof.  Stuart  is  a  half  Baptist  himself.'  I  hope  that  every  Baptist  who  can 
will  procure  a  copy  to  lend  to  his  PiBdobaptist  friends.  The  price  is  only  Si. 00 
From  the  Christian  Secretary,  Conn. 

Prof.  .Stuart,  of  Andover,  is  known  throughout  the  religious  world  as  one  of 
Ui«  Hrightost  luminaries  in  the  Psedobaptist  ranks     and  it  may  excite  the  o» 


CATALOGUE    OF    BOOKS. 


riosity  of  soino  to  inquire  the  reason  wby  a  Baptist  should  publish  a  work  ob 
baptism  by  such  a  distinguished  Psedobaptist.  Mr.  Graves,  in  his  Introdue 
tory  Review  of  the  work,  answers  the  question — first,  as  a  work  of  authority 
upon  the  subject  of  the  primitive  action  of  baptism,  and  the  scriptural  warrant 
for  infant  baptism  ;  and  secondly,  because  his  admissions,  his  facts  and  autho- 
rities are  most  clearly  and  conclusively  in  favor  of  the  Baptists.  The  weight 
of  testimony,  as  presented  by  Prof.  Stuart,  was  so  decidedly  in  favor  of  Baptist 
principles,  as  to  induce  Mr.  Graves  to  republish  it  as  a  standard  of  authority 
for  Baptists.  The  Professor's  reasoning  is,  of  course,  in  behalf  of  the  Psedo- 
baptist side  of  the  question,  but  his  authorities  and  facts  go  to  prove  the  oppo- 
Bite  of  his  reasoning.  It  is  a  singular  fact,  but  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that 
Prof  Stuart,  in  writing  a  book  for  the  express  purpose  of  disproving  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Baptists,  has  produced  one  of  the  best  books  that  has  been  written 
in  favor  of  those  sentiments.  The  only  theory  upon  which  this  fact  can  be  ac- 
counted for  is,  that  the  Baptists  hold  the  truth  on  this  question,  and  that  Prof 
Stuart,  being  an  honest  man,  could  not  conceal  it. 

From  The  Journal  and  Messenger,  Ohio. 

This,  as  is  understood,  is  a  work  by  a  learned  Pa^dobaptist,  now  decea.oed. — 
It  is  often  referred  to  and  quoted  by  Baptists,  on  account  of  the  candid  conces- 
sions emanating  from  such  a  truthful  and  learned  scholar.  "  From  the  earliest 
ages,"  says  he,  "  of  which  we  have  any  account,  subsequent  to  the  Apostolic 
ago,  and  downward  for  several  centuries,  the  churches  did  generally  practice 
Baptism  by  immersion,"  &c.,  <fcc.  '•  Commands,  or  plain  and  certain  e.xamplcs 
In  the  New  Testament  relative"  to  "  Infant  Baptism,"  "  I  do  not  find,"  Ac., 
&c.  As  a  philological  and  exegetical  worlt,  independent  of  its  historical  char- 
acter— though  as  Baptists  we  cannot  subscribe  to  many  of  its  conclusions — it  ia 
invaluable.  Every  theological  student  should  have  it  in  his  library.  We 
wonder  that  PtedobaptisLs  can  continue  their  unscriptural  practices  in  the  face 
of  such  a  standing  witness  against  them — one  of  their  learned  men.  The  in- 
troductory review  by  Bro  Graves,  the  chapter  ajipended  on  "  The  Importanoe 
of  Literal  Obedience,"  with  the  appendi.x  of  Notes,  are  valuable  accompani- 
ments. Bro.  G.  speaks  of  Prof.  Stuart  being  a  Presbyterian  ;  we  think  he  was 
a  Congregationalist.  The  word  "  Pccflobaptisdc"  is  used.  We  wish  it  and 
its  antipode  Baptistic  never  were  used.  AVhy  not  simply  employ  Psedobaptist 
and  Baptist  in  thoir  adjoetive  import  1 

From  the  Baptist  Watchman. 

This  work,  by  a  di,?tinguished  Predobaptist  scholar  and  di\-ine,  is  a  highly 
valuable  addition  to  a  Baptist  library.  Especially  should  every  Baptist 
preacher  avail  himself  of  the  advantage  afforded  by  a  reference  to  the  admis- 
aions  of  Prof.  S.  on  the  action  of  B.iptism.  In  our  humble  judgment,  this  work 
is  destined  to  exert  a  far  great,er  influence  in  favor  of  the  Baptist  argument  on 
this  question  than  any  Paedohaptist  concessions  of  the  day,  and  for  the  reason 
that  the  research  and  the  apt  classical  illustrations  presented,  display  profound 
scholarship  ;  and  as  far  as  theseyoc^s  and  authorities  go  to  support  the  argu- 
ment for  immersion,  Prof  S.  settles  the  question,  for  he  says — "  But  enough, 
'  it  is,'  says  Aagosti,  '  a  thing  made  out,'  viz. ;  the  ancient  practice  of  im- 
mersion. So  indeed  all  the  writers,  who  have  investigated  thoroughly  thia 
subject,  conclude.  I  know  of  no  one  usage  of  ancient  times  which  seems  to  be 
more  clearly  made  out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any  candid  man 
who  c.xaminos  the  subject  to  deny  this." 

Whatever  the  inferences  from  Ptedobaptist  reasoning  after  these  candid  ad 
uiiwioas,  the  conclusion  drawn  by  an  unprejudiced,  logical  mind,  must  be  itei 
»  j^ationt  investigation  of  the  principles  and  promises  laid  down,  just  such;  onf 
a-  <i^ote<\  above,  "  u  thing  made  out,"  viz    "  the  ancient  practice  of  immers    a 


CATALOGUE    OF    BOOKiJ. 


BOOK     PUBLICATIONS. 


MiiTUODISM  BIIOWN  TO  BE  REPUBLICANISM  BACKWARI>S 

AND  CHRISTIANITY  REVERSED. 

By  J.  R.  Graves,  JEditor  of  Tennessee  Baptist. 

576  pilgfjs  ;  price  $1.00,  sent  by  mail ;  or  $75  by  the  hundred  copies 

This  work  in  twelve  months  from  its  publication  reached  its  twelfth  editioD 

R-ithout  the  usual  appliarces  of  publishers  to  push  their  publications.     The  de 

iii;ind  for  it  is  still  unabated,  and  is  exhausting  an  edition  per  month. 

It  is  considered  in  all  respects  the  most  thorough  review  and  expose  of  gov- 
ernment am',  peculiar  doctrines  of  Methodist  Hierarchy  ever  publL^bed.  li  ii 
not  an  attack  upon  individuals,  but  upon  principles— iho  PoriSH  features  uf 
American  Methodism. 

lOvery  American  Churchman  and  Christiaa  ought  to  read  'his  work 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

New  lork  Recorder  and  Register,  New  York. 

This  volume  is  a  popular  and  elFectivo  onslaught  upon  Methodism  as  taugJit 
in  the  Discipline,  and  illustrated  practically  in  the  South-west.       *         * 

This  bonk  illustrates  the  whole  subject  of  Methodism  as  seen  from  such  a  po- 
sition and  under  such  lights,  and  makes  an  e.^^posure  which  cannot  but  be  felt 
witli  immense  damage  to  a  system  so  utterl_y  without  warrant  of  scripture  or 
intiquity.  A  .system  of  bishops,  like  a  system  of  monarchy,  must  be  very  old 
>o  be  re.spectable. 

The  Watchman  and  Rejlector,  Boston. 
In  contrasting  "  Cook's  Centuries  "  with  the  Gm;.4.T  Iron  Wheel,  the  eauut 
days  ;  "  In  such  a  '  formal  estimate  of  Meihodism,'  it  is  certainly  surpri.'ing 
fhat  the  author.  [Mr.  Cook,]  who  is  an  able  defender  of  Congregational  polity, 
should  have  p.assed  over  as  he  has  the  governmental  framework  of  the  Metho- 
dist Church—  its  essential  monarchy  and  consequent  incongruit3',  as  nourishing 
in  the  soil  of  democratic  institutions.  This  argumeiit,  which  the  author  of  tkt 
'G-real  Iron  Wheel '  has  used  -with  decided  cogency  and  effect,  is  displ.ieed  in 
Dr.  Cook's  book  by  points  such  as  we  have  enumerated,  but  which  all  put  to- 
gether have,  as  compared  with  this  one,  far  less  metal  and  iceight.'' 

Report  of  Committee  appointed  by  the  Publication  Society  of  N.  Ca. 
With  greatly  increased  confidence  in  the  truthfulness  of  the   positions  dis 
cus.scd  in  the  Croat  Iron  Wheel,  and  more  than  ever  convinced  that  its  circu 
latioc  will  have  a  tendency  tc  tx)rrect  error,  and  to  disseminate  sound,  scripto 
raX  views  upon  the  subject  of  Church  Government, 

Wo  remain  your  faithful  servants. 

J  AS.  McD.ANTKL 
A,  M^DCWELi, 
'  (}.  W.  JOa^.S'.fK 


r^TALOGIIK    OF    BOOKS. 


From  the  Puritan  Eecoj-der.     Congregational  paper,  Boston. 

This  book  shouM  be  compared  with  "  Cooke's  Centuries,'"  for  such  n  compari- 
son will  show,  in  a  striking  light,  two  portraits  of  the  same  face,  drawn  bj 
writers  a  thousand  miles  apart,  wtioso  labors  were  unknown  to  each  other,  and 
yet  in  the  main  features  of  the  portrait,  marvellously  concurring  and  thus  con- 
lirming  the  fact  that  s«ch  an  original  exists.  But  in  the  comparison,  it  will  b« 
seen  that  Mr.  Graves'  boolj  presents  a  portrait  much  more  highly  colored  th;ijn 
the  other. 

Wherever  the  other  has  been  found  to  be  too  strong  meat,  this  will  not  do  at 
all.  Those  whose  eyes  are  not  fully  open,  or  who  see  men  as  trees  walking, 
will  hardl\'  be  able  to  digest  such  a  book.  But  we  have  reason  to  know  thut 
there  are  multitudes  aia<ing  us  now,  that  are  of"  full  ago,"  even  of  tiiose  who, 
"by  reason  of  use,  have  their  senses  exercised  to  discern  both  good  and  evil," 
to  whom  such  strong  meat  belongeth.  It  i.'^  the  product  of  a  powerful  mind, 
of  a  firm,  unflinching  purpose,  and  a  flaming  heart.  It  goes  over  much  ground 
cot  traversed  by  "  Cooke's  Centuries,"  though  it  deals  little  in  the  results  of 
Methodism,  which  is  the  main  design  of  that  book.  Its  author  occupies  an  in- 
fluential position  at  the  South,  and  the  acceptablencss  of  his  wor.k  has  been 
well  tested  there  by  a  rapid  sale  extending  through  four  years.     *     * 

From  the  True  Union,  Baltimore,  Md. 

This  is  a  volume  of  between  five  and  six  hundred  pages,  consisting  of  a  series 
of  forty  letters,  addressed  to  Bishop  Soule,  and  originally  published  in  the 
Tennessee  Baptist,  They  are  now  presented  in  a  book  form,  in  compliance 
with  the  wishes  of  many  who  read  them,  as  they  apjxsared. 

The  quotations  he  gives  from  the  .Methodist  publications,  which  flood  the  great 
West,  fully  justify  this  assertion.  Our  fear  is,  that  those  who  need  to  be  con- 
vinced of  their  errors,  will  not  read  a  word  which  so  merciless  lays  the  axe  at 
the  root  of  those  errors.  Truth  in  this  book  is  presented  in  a  dish  so  highly 
spiced,  that  those  palates  for  which  it  is  designed  may  refuse  the  wholesome 
nutriment  it  contains.  If  Methodists  will  only  read  it,  we  see  not  how  they  can 
fail  to  renounce  n  form  of  government  so  clearly  proved  to  be  unscriptural  and 
anti-republican. 

From  the  Western  Watchman,  kt.  Louis,  ]lio. 

The  unique  title  of  the  book  was  suggested  by  a  passage  in  the  spcoeh  of  iha 
late  Rev.  Mr.  Cookman,  a  distinguished  Methodist  preacher.  In  illustrating 
the  peculiar  workings  of  Methodism,  Mr.  Cookman  said  ;  "  There  is  the  great 
outer  wheel  of  cpiscopac}',  which  accomplishes  its  entire  revolution  once  in/bur 
I/ears.  To  this  are  attached  twenty-eight  smaller  wheels,  styled  Annual  Con- 
ferences, moving  round  once  a  year;  to  those  are  attached  one  hundred  wheels, 
designated  Presiding  Elders,  moving  twelve  hundred  other  wheels,  termed 
Quarterly  Conferences  every  three  months  ;  to  these  are  attached  four  thousand 
vthee's,  styled  traveling  preachers,  moving  round  once  a  month,  and  commu- 
nicating motion  to  thirty  thousand  v?hcols,  called  Class  Leaders,  moving  round 
one?  a  week,  and  who  in  turn,  being  attached  to  between  seven  and  eight  hun- 
ihed  thousand  wheels,  called  members,  give  a  sufficient  impulse  to  wliirl  theto 
aniand  every  day.     What  a  machine  is  this !" 

This  great  "machine"  is  very  curiously  represented  in  a  cut,  in  which  the 
iJi.-'liops,  Conferences,  Presiding  Elders,  traveling  preachers,  ami  class  leader.-i, 
^hirl  about,  in  one  groat  complicated  system.  The  book  tells  a  pretty  plain 
lale,  giiing  to  the  origin  of  Methodism,  tracing  rut  its  early  history,  showing  how 


CATALOOVF,    OF    BOOKS. 


tba  ?ya!oin  rose,  and  became  wlint  it  is.  lie  quotes  tho  declarations  of  the  most 
eminent  Methodist  writers  th;it  Methodism  is  a  human  invention, that  it  came  to 
be  wliat  it  i^  by  accident,  that  ^Veslcy  declared  himself  opposed  to  episcopacy, 
and  aid  not  believe  in  tiiree  orders  in  tho  ministry,  that  the  system  is  oppo^-ed  tu 
republicanism,  and  that  tlic  Methodist  terms  of  communion  are  moie  close  than 
of  other  scots.  These  and  many  other  positions  are  sustained  by  Methodist 
authorities,  and  the  book  contains,  altogether,  a  very  curious  coilectioH  of  fact.» 
rel.itivo  to  the  woricings of  Methodism  in  America.  It  has  its  author's  charao 
leristic  faults,  which  we  need  not  jioint  out,  :^s,  like  every  thing  about  bin:, 
they  stand  out  boldly,  and  can  be  readily  seen. 

This  liook  will  be  read,  and  will  have  it.-^  influence.  Tho  topics  discussed  in 
il,  aie  legitimate  and  proper  for  discu.ssion.  Methodists  are  not  too  scrupuloiw 
to  opjiose,  or  expose  the  doctrines  of  other  sects,  nor  too  modest  to  extol  theij 
own.  They  must,  therefore,  expect  their  system  to  be  investigated.  Brolhei 
Graves  has  used  his  liberty  pretty  freely,  used  plain  language,  but,  if  we  mis- 
t;kko  not,  his  book  will  make  its  mark. 

From  the  Christian  Ckroniclc,  Pliiladdphia. 
The  author  has  been  the  editor  of  tho  Tennessee  Baptist  for  many  .years,  and 
in  that  paper  these  letters  were  originally  publi,?hod.  They  now  appear  in  a 
neat  bound  volume  for  preservation  and  circulation.  Jlr.  Graves  is  a  thorough 
republican,  and  earnestly  opposed  to  all  else  in  cither  civil  or  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernments, lie  considers  t!ie  Methodist  denomination  as  constantly  preaching 
and  publishing  in  a  way  to  misrepresent  his  own  denomination,  and  to  preju- 
dice the  people  against  it.  Thus  he  here  appears  in  defence  of  the  truth  in  the 
case,  sustaining  with  a  candid  and  vigorous  pen  tho  principles  he  holds,  and 
exposing  tho  unseriptural  character  and  pernicious  tendency  of  Metliodisra. 
AVc  commend  the  book  to  all  who  would  imderstand  the  merits  of  the  cjuestion 
nt  issue.  This  volume  contains  nearly  si.v  hun^lrcd  pages,  and  a  striking  en- 
graving of  the  author. 

From  the  Biblical  Recorder,  North  Carolina. 

This  is  a  book  of  576  pp  ,  and  embraces  forty  Letters  originally  publisheil 
!n  the  Tcnne.ssee  Baptist.  We  are  glad  to  see  them  sent  forth  in  tnoir  present 
durable  form,  as  we  think  tho  work  is  calculated  to  do  good.  It  is  a  thorough 
e.xposition  and  refutation  of  the  unseriptural  and  anii-republiean  organization 
nud  govenimout  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  The  author's  style  is  bold  and  fear- 
less ;  and,  by  some,  may  bo  considercil  harsh  and  censorious.  Cut,  he  deals 
in  truth;  and  many  provoking  circumstaiiccs,  some ,vhat  peculiar  to  Western 
L'ontrovcrsy,  palliate,  if  the;'  do  not  justify,  tho  seeming  severity  which  per- 
vades the  volume. 

We  saw  it  announced  a  few  days  since  that  a  Methodist  preacher  of  Virginia 
Intends  to  prepare  an  ehiboratc  work  on  the  Relations  of  Methodism  to  Rc- 
putili^a7iism,  and  requests  his  friends  having  pertinent  documents  to  forward 
tl.em  to  him.  'W^o  would  resjxictfully  recommend  to  him  a  careful  perusal  of 
"  The  Great  Iron  Wheel,"  as  we  think  he  can  hardly  do  his  subject  justice  with- 
out reading  it. 

We  hope  all  Baptists  will  procure  it,  and  aid  in  its  circulation  to  the  utmost 
of  their  ability.  .//  ouglit  to  be  read,  especialhj  in  these  day3  of  -slig-iju^  con 
iruvcrstf. 


TRACTS  RECENTLY  PUBLISHED. 


iUGllT  BAPTISTS  LOXGEK.  TO  BE  CONNECTED  Vv^ITU  OR  I'ATROh 
ize  tho  American  S.  S.  Union  or  Tract  Society? 

OUGHT   BAPTISTS  TO  USE  COJIPliOJIISE  BOOKS  IN   TilEIR  SAD- 
bath  Schools? 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  COMPRO.MISE  UPON  WHICH  THE  AMERICAN 
S.  S.  Union  and  Tract  Society  are  based,  sinful. 

TUK  NEGLECT  OF  IXiTANT  BAPTISM  NO  SIN— THE  DECISION  OF  A 
Presbyterian  Synod. 

QUKSTIONS  BY  A  METHODIST  TO  METHODISTS— Ist  and  2d  Sorios. 

PROTESTANT  DIFFICULTIES. 

SHORT  ARTICLES  ON  COMMUNION. 

THE  VOUNG  CONVERT  AND  A  CIGAK. 

EPISCOPAL  METHODISM  ANTI-AMERICAN. 

THAT  BLESSED  HOPE. 

SKRIOUS  ADDRESSES  TO  THE  SPECTATORS  OF  A  BAPTISM. 

SCRIPTURAL  BAPTISM. 

ARK  YOU  A  PROTESTANT? 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

THE  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

REASONS  FOR  THE  BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  BY  IMMERSION. 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 

HINDERANCES  TO  BAPTISM. 

EXISTING  DIFFERENCES  OF  SENTIMENT  AND  PRACTICE  AMONG 
Christians  injurious  and  indefensible. 

BAPTISM  IN  THE  TIME  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

DUTY  OF  BAPTISTS— By  \Vm.  Knibb. 

A    BRIEF   HISTORY    OF   THE    BAPTISTS   IN    BRITAIN,  and   several 
others. 

To  this  list  new  Tiacfs  are  Ijcinp;  constantly  added.     Packuges  of  3G0  pogo* 
<!f  any  one  Tract,  or  of  Assorted  Tracts,  sold  at  25  cents. 

SOUTH-"n'ESTi;KN    PUBLISHING    HO'JSE,    NA.SIIVILLK,   TENN. 


THE  SOUTH-WESTERN  PUBLISHING  HOUSE, 

GRAVES,    MARKS    &.   Co., 

^^  ^014(1  &(laiice4  ifkefdj  ^'a^kmiU,  §'enn. 


^^~  Messrs.  G.,  M.  &  Co.  would  call  the  attention  of  Booksellers,  Min- 
isters, Colporteurs,  and  reading  Baptists,  to  their  valuable  and  rapidly 
increasing  list  of  denominational  works,  the  productions  of  some  of  the 
ablest  writers  in  the  South.  Also  to  their  Tract  Publications,  1200  pages 
for$l  00. 

TERMS  OP  SALE. — No  Books  sent  out  on  Cominiasion. 

DISCOUNT  for  Box  Orders.— Approved  Note  of  four  montba,  on  8100  and  upward, 
331^  per  cent. ;  for  Cash,  5  per  cent,  additional  discount  from  the  reduced  amount  of 
bill.     -     —" 


For  $50's  worth,  30  per  cent,  off;   8'2o,  25  per  cent.  otf. 
Wall's  History  of  Infant  Rnptism,  and 

Gale's  Reply.     2  vol3.,  royal  8vo $7  00 

Robinson's  Historical  Works. 

Vol.    I.     History  of  Baptism $3  50 

Vol.11.    Ecclesiastical 3  ,0U 

Notes  on  the  New  Testament. 

By  Adiel  Sherwood.    2  vols.,  2  50 

Treatment  of  Typhoid  Fever. 

By  R.  Thompson,  M.  D.     (A  work  for 

Families,) 2  00 

The  Power  of  Christian  Union. 

By  B.  T.  Taylor 1  50 

Works  by  J.  R.  Graves. 

The  Great  Iron  Wheel 1  00 

The  Little  Iron  Wheel 40 

Letters  to  N.  L.Rice,  (in  preparation,)  1  00 
The  Trilemm.a, 30 

Orchard's  Chronologicwl  History. 

Vols.  I  and  II,  each 1  00 

Works  by  A.  C.  Dayton. 

Theodosia  Earnest 1  00 

Ten  Davs  in  .Search  of  the  Church 1  00 

The  Infidel's  Daughter 1  00 

The   Immersions   of  Pedobaptists  and 

Campl)ellites, .' 40 

Answer  to  Theophilus  Walton 2'-> 

Scriptural  Question  Books,  (series,)....  15 

Works  by  J.  M.  Pendleton. 

Short  Sermons,  (Fifty.) 1  OLV 

Three  Reasons  for  bein.15  a  Baptist, 40 

Questions  to  the  Impenitent,  ,...1,5  and  2.5 

Thoughts  on  Christian  Duty,  ....15  and  25 

Works  by  W.  C.  Buck. 

The  Philosophy  of  Religion 1  00 

The  Science  of  Life 1  00 

Barton's  English  Grammars,  (a  scries,) 
"  "        Composition 

Christian  Paradoxes. 

By  N.  M.  Crawford 1  00 

Revival  Sermons. 

ByT.  C.  Toasdale 1  00 


75 


25 


A  Thorough  Expose  of  CampbelUsm, 

By   A.   1'.    Williams,   in   a   Review  of 

Laird,  (in ^jrMS,) 1  00 

Papacy  and  Protestantism  compared. 

In  Letters  to  Pedobaptists.    J.  F.  B..  1  00 

Harmony  &  Exposition  of  N.  Testament 

Prophecies.     By  D.  D.  Buck $1  .W 

iMarrlage  and  the  Married  State. 

By  J.  M.  D.  Gates, 75 

Stuart  on  Baptism. 

Edited  by  J.  R.  Graves, 75 

The  Old  Pine  Farm. 

By  a  S.  C.  Minister,  

Prize  Essay  on  Communion. 

By  J.  M.  C.  Brcikcr, 

Avenging  the  Elect. 

By  D.  D.  Buck 41 

The  Baptlsts,Whcrc  did  they  come  from  ? 

By  S.  U.  Ford 4U 

Dancing,  Religion  and  Revelry. 

By  Mrs.  F.  E.  Garuett 40 

Miscellaneous  Works. 

The  First  Church  in  Providence,  not 
the  oldest  Baptist  Church  in  Amer- 
ica.    ByS.  Adlam 25 

The  B.',ptism  of  Jesus,  Baptism  for  Re- 
mission of  Sins.  By  N.  M.  Craw- 
ford       25 

The  True  Mission  of  Baptists.     By  J. 

B.  .Jeter,  D.D.,  in  paper  10,  in  cloth      25 

Ecclesiastical  Unity.    By  A.  Jones,  Jr., 

in  paper  10,  in  cloth 25 

Reasons   for  becoming  a  Baptist.     By 

Vv'm.  L.  Slack,  in  paper  10,  in  cloth      25 

Vaughn's  School  Series,  4  vols 

Rights  of  Laymen,  in  paper  10,  in  cloth      25 

Christ  or  the  Church.  By  R.  II.  Tal- 
iaferro, in  paper  10,  in  cloth 25 

The  Concessions  of  Pedobaptists.     By 

Wm.  Barksdale,  in  paper  lO.incloth      25 

Question  of  the  Age.     By  J.  S.  Baker, 

in  paper  10,  in  cloth 25 


THE     SOUTHKRN     PSALMIST, 


I'rw  Size 
New  Tr.ict  SitIi's, 


Edited  by  J-  15.  Un.vvK.s  and  J.  i\I.  Pkmu.eton,  Tenn. 

Pocket  size,  in  sheep, 50  c. 

75  c. 

inn)  {.ages  for  Sl.OO. 


ru  I!  1. 1 1;  II  i;  11    i;  v 

GRAVES,  MARKS  &  CO.,  NASHVILLE,  TEK.N. 

PERIODICAIiS. 

Tennessee   Baptist (in  advance)  $2.00 

Southern  Baiitist  Review,  Quarterly "  2.1)0 

Children's  Book,  Jlonthly "  1.00 


BOOKS   NOT   SENT   OUT    ON  CO:UJIIS.SI0N. 

ESTABLISHED   TEEMS   OF   SALE. 


On  bills  of  SlOO  and  upward  33!;;  per  cent.  otV. 
On  bills  of  S50  and  under  SlOO,  30  per  cent.  ofl. 
A  credit  of  -1  mos.  for  approved  paper,  or  o  I'cr 
cash. 


cut.  from  llie  above  rates  fo 


Our  Lord's  great  Troplieej' SI. 

Philosophy  of  Eeligion 1. 

Sherwood's  Notes,  Vol.  1 1 

Sherwood's  Notes,  'V'ol.  II 1 

Christian  Paradoxes 1 

Great  Iron  Wheel 1 

Theodosia,  Vol.  I..  1 

Thcodosia,  Vol.  II 1 

Infidel'.s  Confession,  or  Power  of 

Ciiristian  Union I 

Infidel's  Daughter,  (not  ready)....  1 
Orchard's  History  of  Foreign  Bap- 
tists, enlarged,  Vol.  1 1 

Orchard's  History  of  English  and 

Welsh  B.aptists,  Vol.  II I 

Teasdale's  Revival  Sermons I. 

The  Old  Pine  Farm 1, 

Stu.T,rt  on  Baptizo 

Southern  Psalmist,  Pew  Edition... 
"              "           Pocket  Edition 
Tlireo  Reasons  why  I  am  a  Baptist 
I'edobaptists  and  Campbollito  Im- 
mersions  

Little  Iron  Wheel 

D.xueing,  Revelry,  and  Religion... 

Avenging  the  Elect 

Prize    Essay  on    Communion,   in 
cloth 


15 


10 


Thoughts  on  Christian  Duty 1-5 

Questions  to  the  Impenitent 15 

Questions  of  tlie  Age 15 

The  Faithful  Centurion 15 

Dayton's  Scripture  Question  Book, 

Vol.  I 

Dayton's  Scripture  Question  Book, 

Vol.  II 

Prize    Ess.ay  on    Communion,   in 

paper 

Which  is  our  Savior,  Christ  or  the 

Church  ? 10 

Ecclesiastical  Unity 10 

Old  Landmark  Reset 10 

Christianity  Susceptible  of  Legal 

Proof 10 

Baptiiim  for  Remission  of  Sins 10 

Baptists  not  Protestants 10 

Mission  of  Baptists 10 

Reasons  for  becoming  a  Baptist. ...      10 
Rise  and  Progress  of  Open  Com- 
munion        10 

Concessions  of  Pedobaptists 10 

Importance  of  Correct  Belief. 10 

Rights  of  Laymen,  by  a  Layman ...      10 

JMay  Christians  Dance? 5 

Concise   View   of  Christian   Bap- 
tism         5 


PROPOSED  TO  BE  PUBLISHED  ON  SUBSCRIPTION. 

Wall's  llistoi'v  of  Infant  Baptism,  2  octavo  volumes S8.00 

Robinson's  Ecclesiastical  Researches,  1  volume 3.00 

i  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  1  volume 3.00 
.._ ^ 

fo 


r\    Ready  for  delivery  on  the  1st  of  January,  1800. 
^Q)y ^ 


SOUTH-WESTERN  PUBLISHING  HOUSE, 

;.    R.    GRAVES,  W.    P.    MARKS,  S.    C.    ROGERS,  E.    F.    P.   TOOLK. 

The  j'olloicring  States  are  represented  by  Authon, 

Virginia. 

,1.  B.  JETER,  D.  D.    The  True  Mission  of  Baptists 50  10 

R.  JONES.     Tonr  Through  Methodism, 5 

South  Carolina. 

J.  !W.  U.  BREAKER,    Prize  Es5av  on  Cornmunir<n 25 

A  JNUNISTER.     The  Old  Pine  farm, 7o 

Florida. 

J.  S.  BAKER.    The  Question  of  the  Age,  iu  paper  15,  in  cloth 2.'> 

Georgia. 

N.M.CRAWFORD.    Christian  Paradoxes 1  00 

The  Baptism  of  Jesus,  Uu[>tism  for  Remission  of  Sins,      25 
ADIEL  SHERWOOD.    Notes  ou  the  New  Testament,  2  vols., 2  50 

Alabama. 

W.  C.  BUCK.    The  Philosophy  of  Religion 1  00 

The  Science  of  Life,   1  00 

Barton's  English  Grammars,  (a  SBrics,^ 50  and      75 

Mississippi.    "  "        co-i-'^'- 50''°'»      75 

T.  C.  TEASDALE.     Revival  Sermons, 1  00 

A.  JONES,  JR.     Ecclesiastical  Unity,  in  paper  10,  cloth 25 

WM.  L,.  SLACK.    Reasons  fur  becoming  a  Baptist,  in  paper  10,  iu  cloth....      25 

Louisiana.      ^'''"8'>ns  School  Series,  4 vols. 
A  LAYMAN.     Rights  of  Laymen,  in  paper  10,  in  cloth 25 

Texas. 

R.  II.  TALIAFERRO.     Christ  or  the  Church 10 

Arkansas. 

W.  II.  BARKSDALE.    The  Concessions  of  PeJobaptists, 10 

Tennessee. 

J.  R.  GRAVES.      The  Great  Iron  Wheel 1  00 

The  Little  Iron  Wheel 40 

The  Trilemma 75 

Editor  of  Stuart  on  Baptism 30 

•'         Orchard's  Chronological  History,  vols.  1  and  II,  each...  I  00 
•'  Robinson's  Historical  Works. 

Vol.  I,  History  of  U.-vptism, .3  .W 

Vol.  II,  Ecclesi.istical  Researches .S  50 

Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  2  vols 7  UO 

A.C.DAYTON.     Theodosia  Earnest I  00 

Ten  Days  in  Search  of  the  Church, 1  00 

The  lufidel's  D.aughter, 1  00 

The  Immerjions  of  Pedobaptists  and  Campbellites, 40 

Answer  to  Theophilus  Walton 25 

Scriptural  (iuestion  Books,  (series,) 15 

J.  M.  PENDLETON.     Short  Sermons  (Fifty)..' 1  00 

Three  Reasons  for  being  a  Baptist 40 

Questions  to  the  Impenitent,  in  paper  1.'),  in  cloth 25 

Thoughts  on  Christian  Duty,  in  paper  Li,  in  cloth 25 

J   JI.  D.  GATES.    Marriage  and  the  Married  State 75 

R   TllOMl'SON,  M.  D.     On  the  Treatment  of  Typhoid  Fever,  (a  work  for 
■      ,     "       ,  Families,) 2  00 

Kentueky. 

B.  T.  TAYLOR.     The  Power  of  Christian  Union 1  .50 

S    H.FORD.     The  Baptists.  Where  did  they  .come  from 40 

MRS.  F.  E.  GARNETT.    Dancing,  Religion  and  Revelry, 4U 

Missouri. 

A.  P.  WILLIAMS.     A  thorough  ExpusC  of  Campbellism,  in  a  Review  of 

„        ,,     ,  Laird,  (in  press,) 100 

New  York.  ^     ' 

D.  D.  BUCK.    Harmony  and  Exposition  of  N.  T.  Prophecies 1  .10 

Avenging  tho  Elect 40 

J   F.  BLISS.    Papacy  and  Protestantism  compared,  in  Letters  to  Pedobap- 
tists,   1  00 

Rhode  Island. 

S.  ADLAM.    The   First  Church  in  Providence,  not  the  oldest  Baptist 

Church  in  America 25 

THE    SOUTHERN    PSALMIST, 

Edited  by  J.  R.  Graves  and  J.  M.  Pkndletou,  Tenn. 
Pocket  size,  in  shcop 50       Pew  size,  in  sheep 75 

New  Tract  Series,        1200  pages  for  $1.00. 


